1951-03-15

Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am mentioned in a newspaper-I believe it is published in Ontario-entitled "No More War". The portion I should like to quote reads as follows:
In response to presentation of a petition endorsed by half a million electors, George Cruickshank, M.P., rivalling Mr. Ferguson in degrading the reputation of parliament, wrote:	"Further to your brief of
February 20, Dr. J. G. Endicott has my full permission to take a jump into lake Ontario."
My question of privilege is, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry he did not take the jump.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES CHANGE IN PERSONNEL OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Byrne be substituted for that of Mr. Lafontaine on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: For some time hon. members of this house, together with members of the press gallery, have complained about the difficulty in hearing speeches by hon. members who are seated some distance from them. When I was in Europe last fall I visited the seats of government in Italy, Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom, to ascertain what system of amplification was being used in the assemblies of these countries, and its effectiveness. I found in Italy, Switzerland and France that members speak from a rostrum; that is to say, the member who is speaking goes either to a central microphone or to one of several microphones in the chamber.
The installation of an amplification system under such circumstances is a relatively simple matter, but it could not be adapted to our parliament. Our system is based on
the British system, of government and opposition facing each other, where hon. members speak from their seats as and when permitted by Mr. Speaker. I was therefore particularly interested in the voice reproduction system which has been installed in the chamber of the British House of Commons. I was informed that the fundamental principle behind the system in the British house is to diffuse sound from miniature loud-speakers at a sound level not greater than that at which a listener will hear if he is within a few feet of the member who is speaking. This is accomplished by microphones suspended over the benches in the chamber and by loudspeakers placed in the backs of the benches.
There are, in all, fourteen microphones. Six of these microphones, at approximately equal intervals, are suspended from the ceiling of the chamber. These are placed just above the front benches of the government and the opposition at a height of approximately eight and a half feet above floor level. The remaining seats in the house are served by eight microphones, four on each side of the chamber, suspended into the chamber on rods which are attached to the lower part of the galleries. In addition to these microphones there is a microphone overhead in the canopy of the Speaker's chair, and also a microphone on the table. The loud-speakers are placed at the top of the backs of the members' benches, and also at the top of the backs of the benches in the galleries at intervals of about four feet. These loud-speakers are circular in shape, and are quite small, having a diameter of about three inches.
The system is controlled by an operator who is outside the chamber but has a complete view of the chamber. When a member rises to speak, he switches the microphone located nearest to the member. The loud-speakers-or, as they may more appropriately be called, the voice reproduction units-close to the member who is speaking, are muted, as here, naturally, he can be heard quite well without the need of the reproduction units. In the adjacent zone the units are partly muted, whereas all the rest reproduce at the level required.
While I was at Westminster the officials of the house very generously gave me of their time in explaining the system to me and I am especially grateful to Dr. Oscar Faber, O.B.E., the consulting engineer, and to Mr. N. Sizer,

House of Commons the assistant chief engineer of the ministry of works, for their kindness and for their patience.
Upon my return to Canada, with the consent of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), I invited Mr. Sizer to come to Canada in order that I could get his opinion as to whether a similar system could be adapted to our chamber. Mr. Sizer, with the wholehearted approval of the British Minister of Works, came to Canada at the end of January and was here for about a week, during which time he consulted with the chief architect and the assistant chief architect and other officials of our Department of Public Works, and also with Dr. Field, of the defence research department. He also made a careful inspection of the chamber, both generally and in detail, and on a number of days was present in our chamber when the house was in session.
Before leaving Canada he was good enough to leave with me a report on his observations, in which he says, in part, that he could see no reason why a system similar to the system now in operation at Westminster would not prove as satisfactory in Canada, and that such a system could be designed on similar lines for our chamber. I also have a report from Dr. Faber, the consulting engineer, and an additional report from Mr. Sizer, which they gave me when I was in England. Mr. Sizer left with me and our departmental officials a number of photographs, together with one of the microphones and one of the loud-speakers.
May I also say that the chief architect's branch of our Department of Public Works, in conjunction with Dr. Field, of the defence research department, has considered the installation in our chamber of a low-level system similar to the one which I have described. The officials of these two departments, I am pleased to say, are very well informed on this system of amplification, and believe that it can be installed so as not to cause any objectionable features from a decorative point of view.
I am satisfied from the investigations that have been made that the only amplification system which would be generally acceptable to the members of our house is one similar to the system now in operation at Westminster. I would not want to ask members to accept my recommendation, nor would I want to assume the sole responsibility for any system that is installed. It has occurred to me that it might be advisable for the house to appoint a committee to examine in more detail the system in the British house. I would be pleased to put at the disposal of the

committee the reports, photographs and equipment which I have mentioned, together with any other information which may be available.
I trust that the information which I have obtained will be of assistance in determining the system of amplification which may be approved, and I can assure hon. members that I shall be pleased to give whatever assistance I can in this regard.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: On a
question of privilege, I wish to thank Mr. Speaker for showing us that he has more than sympathy for those who sit in the far corners of this house, in the public galleries, and in the press gallery. He has shown that he is a man of action. We appreciate that fact and hope that he will be long spared to carry on.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Higgins:: Is the association known as Nonia (Newfoundland Nursing and Industrial Association) to be permitted to display and sell its products at Gander airport?


Mr. Benidickson:: The matter is still under consideration.



CHURCHILL GRAIN ELEVATOR

Mr. Knight:: 1.	What is the wheat bushel storage capacity of the elevator at Churchill?
2.	How much wheat is in that elevator at this date?
3.	What is the drying capacity of that elevator in terms of number of bushels per day?
4.	What percentage of that drying capacity is now being used?
5.	How much wheat has been dried there since the close of the 1950 shipping season?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	2,500,000 bushels.
2.	463,000 bushels
3.	From 15,000 to 20,000 in 24 hours, depending on the moisture content.
4.	None. Elevator not operating-
5.	None.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


NAVAL SERVICE


Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	How many Canadian (a) cruisers; (b) destroyers; (c) frigates; (d) corvettes; (e) steel mine-
*

sweepers; (f) steel gate vessels; (g) fairmiles; (h) other wooden ships, were in service during world war II?
2.	Since world war II, how many of each of the above classes were (a) retained in active service; (b) retained but decommissioned; (c) sold?
3.	Since 1949, have repurchases of ex-naval ships from civilian owners been negotiated?
4.	If so, how many such negotiations have been carried on, and for what classes of ships?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, March 21, 1951, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Knowles:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Has the minister's attention been drawn to, or has the government any knowledge of, a reported statement by the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Acheson, that his government would not contribute to the financing of the Colombo plan?
In view of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said last month, could he make a statement regarding the present attitude of the government of Canada in relation to this plan?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to a statement made by the Secretary of State of the United States on this matter on February 21, in Washington, and to certain press interpretations of that statement. We have been assured that these interpretations were not accurate, and that the attitude of the United States Government toward the Colombo plan is still one of desire to co-operate in the implementation of that plan.
The most recent statement from Washington on this subject-it is an official statement-
Inquiries of the Ministry was on March 5 last, and one paragraph of that reads:
It confirmed that the United States should continue full participation in the consultative committee-
That is a consultative committee set up by the Colombo plan countries.
[DOT]-and co-ordinate its assistance activities with those of the countries concerned.
Therefore we have no reason to believe that the United States is still not anxious to co-operate in carrying out this plan.
As to the second part of the hon. gentleman's question, I do not think that there is anything that I can add to what I have already said on this subject. I understand that an item covering this matter will be placed in the estimates, and that will be an indication of the government's intention to proceed.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. P. Whitman (Notre Dame de Grace):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it true that the Montreal hospital council has passed a resolution advising its members not to accept identity cards or any other form of identification issued by commercial insurance companies as evidence of guarantee of payment by these companies, and that only Blue Cross be accorded the privilege of having such identification recognized by member hospitals? If so, what recourse have our federal civil servants who are subscribers to the group hospital medical insurance plan sponsored by the national joint council of the public service of Canada?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. The resolution of the Montreal hospital council, referred to by my hon. friend, has been brought to my attention. The board of trustees of the group hospital medical insurance plan for the public service of Canada has brought the matter to the attention of the insuring companies, and I am informed that they, in turn are taking the matter up with the Montreal hospital council.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General? In view of continuing con-

Foreign Exchange Control Act cern by those affected, will the Postmaster General consider suspending the proposed lay-offs of letter carriers until the results of the survey undertaken by his department are in hand?


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Even if I do consider it, and if I did consider it favourably, the estimates for the year do not cover the salaries for these 1,200 people.


An hon. Member:: There are supplemen-taries.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 147, to amend the Foreign Exchange Control Act.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on the second reading of this bill. In his speech on the resolution stage the other day the minister stated that the board was to be in the nature of a stand-by instrument for the future. I said the other day, and I repeat now, that we think it is proper to have a stand-by organization, and therefore we are not against the principle of this bill.
I should like to say at this point that we hope, and I hope, the minister will see to it, so far as he can, that this is as much as possible in the nature of a stand-by organization. Indeed, the minister has already indicated that certain relaxations are now being put in force, and we hope, and everyone must hope, that they will be proceeded with as far as possible.
The reason we are not opposed to the principle of this bill is that while at the present time, with the dollar finding its own level, there does not seem to be danger either of any undue outflow or any undue inflow of money-we seem to be in a certain equilibrium-nevertheless we live in a strange and unpredictable world, and therefore we think that a stand-by organization is justified.
I should like to make two or three observations with regard to the minister's speech; because while we approve the principle of the bill, we do not approve the principle of everything that has been done, and I should like to raise certain questions for the consideration of the house in respect to the operations of the board and of the government in the last few years.

The minister's speech the other day, which he made at considerable length, was a speech with interesting figures on trade, and interesting figures as to the inflow and outflow of United States exchange. The minister was in a very pacific mood. There was no occasion for him to be anything else, but in reading that speech I suggest nobody would believe, nobody would realize, that there had been any point of criticism really of the board at all. I wish to remind the house that there have been certain points of criticism, and I wish to say a word or two about it.
In particular the minister glossed over the change which was made last September when the dollar was allowed to find its level on the exchange markets. Nothing that the minister said would indicate that that really was a position basically different from the previous attitude of the finance authorities, and that it meant really a complete break with the attitude which they had followed up to that point.
I feel it is too much to expect the minister to take us into his confidence in this matter. The minister is a very candid man; nevertheless I think it would be too much to expect him to say what he might feel free to say if it were not for the exigencies of politics. I have taken the liberty therefore, Mr. Speaker, of composing a little speech which I think the minister might have made if he had been perfectly free, what I might call a candid speech. It is very short, sir, much shorter than the speech the minister actually made the other day; and unless he objects to the liberty I have taken in suggesting certain things he might have said, I will now deal with his speech that I have composed. I would say to the minister I hope he will accept this in good faith. I would say it is very kindly meant, as the man said when he murdered his mother-in-law.
Here are the words I have attributed to the minister. Perhaps the house will allow me to stick closely to my notes while I read:
"I propose on this occasion to set politics aside and give you a candid chronicle of the operation of the foreign exchange control board.
"In July, 1946, my predecessor, Mr. Ilsley, announced that the value of the Canadian dollar had been fixed at parity with the United States dollar, instead of at a discount of approximately ten per cent which prevailed during the war. The basis on which this decision was made proved quickly to be mistaken. It was made in the expectation that American prices after a brief rise would drop. This expectation proved to be quite wrong. Meantime, the increased value of our dollar, of course, promoted purchases

by Canada in the United States, and on the other hand drastically lessened American investment in Canada. As a result, we began to lose American exchange and in the year 1947 the rate of loss increased alarmingly. The opposition pointed this out to us but, of course, we could not pay any attention to what they said and we did nothing about it until late in the autumn of 1947. By November, however, we had lost over $1,100 million of the American exchange amounting to $1,624 million which was on hand in June, 1946, just before the change was made. This reduced our reserve so low that we were forced to take action. We could not take the sensible action of lowering the value of the dollar because that advice was given to us by the opposition and, accordingly, we resorted to a variety of legislative devices to lessen trade with the United States. We imposed special excise taxes, and a whole assortment of import restraints to keep out American goods and conserve American dollars. We also felt it necessary to borrow $300 million in the United States to protect the situation."


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is $150 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "By these means, and with the help of increased Canadian exports to the United States, we managed to keep our heads above water and carry on through 1947, 1948 and part of 1949.
"The devaluation of the British pound in September, 1949, faced us with a new situation. We should, of course, have seized this new chance to free the dollar on current account, but it was still very difficult for us to do this. Apart from other reasons, the Prime Minister during the election had vehemently criticized this course, and moreover, it would have been accepting the advice of the opposition. Consequently we again fixed an arbitrary new price of the dollar at approximately 90 cents. It soon became clear that we had gone from one extreme to the other. In 1946 the dollar had been fixed too high, and in 1949 we fixed it at too low a rate. Happily, events moved quickly and prevented us from persisting in this mistake for years as we had done in the mistake of 1946. Before many months it became evident that the Canadian dollar was worth more than the amount we fixed. We persisted, however, in refusing to let it find its own level, until the summer of 1950 reality became too strong for us. I have to admit that the opposition had been for a long time urging us toward realism and in September, 1950, we finally had to take that course.
Foreign Exchange Control Act
"By this time, two things had happened. First of all, the investment attractions of Canada, stimulated by Alberta oil and Labrador iron and many other things, were becoming more and more obvious in the United States, and along with this there was a substantial amount of speculative money which the artificial depreciation of the dollar attracted.
"Our situation in retaining the 90 cents had been made much more difficult by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who in June 1950 gave a broad hint that the dollar might soon be raised. This, of course, stimulated speculation in the dollar and made it much more difficult to retain that rate.
"Accordingly, at the end of September when parliament had risen and we could not be criticized on the floor of the house we announced that the rates of exchange would be determined by conditions of supply and demand. We used the phrase 'hot money' which we thought would obscure the situation, put the blame on American speculators and prevent people from understanding the very plain and simple cause for the change, which was that we had made a mistake in undervaluing the dollar.
"It is unfortunate that our delay in taking this action made necessary the creation of an additional $200 million of inflated currency, and this of course, coming into competition with the existing dollars, helped to raise prices. It is also unfortunate that Canadians making purchases in the United States during this period were penalized by having to use the 90-cent dollar, when later events showed the dollar worth several cents more.
"During the three months after the dollar was allowed to find its own level, our holdings of American exchange ceased to jump up and down and remained practically level, showing the wisdom of the course we had so long resisted."


Douglas Charles Abbott: I must congratulate my hon. friend upon the form, if not the content, of the speech he has attributed to me. It has been pointed out to me, however, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it should not appear in Hansard in six-point type; otherwise the words would be mine.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would
defer wholly to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My interest was that of a printer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would also congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood upon his ingenuity in getting around the ruling with respect to the reading of speeches.

Foreign Exchange Control Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
make a practice of reading my own speeches.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was said in a kindly way, too. I know my hon. friend does not make a practice of reading his speeches.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It has been pointed out to me that I was following a common practice, but one which I very infrequently use.
I have just a word or two more to add, because I would wish that that very excellent speech I have attributed to the minister might have a chance to do its own work. I do feel that the experience we have had will teach us a lesson. I hope it will teach us that there are certain things where there is not just enough wisdom in any human being or any group of human beings to set up their judgment against the judgment of the whole business world. And that is what we have been doing. I congratulate the minister, even though I am late in doing it, upon the wisdom which came to him last September. I hope he never loses it, because I have just a slight feeling that at the present time the dollar, if one may use a phrase which was once so familiar, is half slave and half free-and not as free as I should like.
I hope when the minister talks about a stand-by organization it is not with the idea that he is going to tamper with the operation of the market-unless in the case of an unbelievable emergency which, at the present time, happily does not exist.
I wish further to say that while we approve the principle of the bill, we sincerely hope that it may be possible to simplify the procedure. It is difficult of course, with a bill of only one section, to deal with it in the ordinary way. However upon looking through the sections of the Foreign Exchange Control Act I feel that there are some of them which, in view of the relaxations which have been made, are inapplicable.
For that and other reasons I move, seconded by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross):
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, with instructions that they have power to review the operations of the foreign exchange control board and to consider and report to this house upon the scope of legislation sufficient to provide for necessary foreign exchange control.
I hope the minister will take sympathetically my suggestion that that is the only means we have of trying to have this whole situation reviewed. It is with that in mind that I have offered the amendment for the consideration of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, under other circumstances I do

not know that I would have any objection to the operations of the foreign exchange control board being examined by the banking and commerce committee, but in this case I shall have to oppose the amendment. As the house recalls, the Foreign Exchange Control Act will expire sixty days after the commencement of ' the present session. It is intended that we shall adjourn on the 21st, and in the intervening period I do not believe that it would be either desirable or appropriate to embark upon this particular inquiry.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not even with that efficient committee?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Certainly I would have no adequate opportunity to follow the proceedings of the committee at this time. The act which is now before us has been in force, as we all know, since January 1, 1947. Its terms are familiar to a good many members of this house. The way in which it is operated and the regulations which have been passed under it are fairly familiar, I think, to the business community. Under the circumstances the government feels that the appropriate thing at this time is to ask for a two-year extension of the act as it now stands.
For these and other reasons which I shall not take time to elaborate, I feel I shall have to oppose the amendment moved by my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment will please say aye.


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it and I declare the amendment lost.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonnell, Greenwood) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Continuance.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, the other evening one or two members asked me some questions about the operations of the Foreign Exchange Control Act; in particular the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton asked certain questions as to the present regulations governing travel to the United States. I stated

at that time that I was not familiar with the operations in detail. I gave the hon. member some preliminary answers and indicated that I would like to elaborate on them when we were in committee.
As I indicated at that time in reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, the regulations have recently been changed to provide that no permit is required for a resident traveller to take to the United States up to a combined total of $100 in United States and Canadian funds, that is $100 United States and nil Canadian; $75 United States and $25 Canadian, et cetera. Formerly the limit was $100, of which not more than $50 could be in United States funds.
A resident who is making trips to the United States on which he will not be taking out of Canada more than a combined total of $100 in both United States and Canadian funds may, on application to his bank, obtain for that purpose up to $100 United States during any calendar month. For trips involving larger expenditures, a traveller may obtain from his bank the necessary form H permit and up to $500 United States per trip for business travel and up to $500 United States during the calendar year for travel for other purposes.
Applications for amounts over these limits have to be referred to the foreign exchange control board by the applicant's bank, but are approved for bona fide travel expenditures in any reasonable amounts, having regard to the duration of the proposed journeys.
Under the recent change in the regulation a resident may retain in his possession United States currency which he may receive in the ordinary course or which he has bought from his bank up to a total of $100. These funds may be used on any trip to the United States where the amount taken out by the traveller is such that no form H permit is required. If a traveller needs to buy United States dollars for a trip to the United States, however, he must do so from his bank. Merchants who receive United States currency in the course of their business are not permitted to sell it to other residents but must turn it in to their banks.
The hon. member for Greenwood asked for some further details as to the procedure by which track is kept by the foreign exchange control board of exports to the United States. I shall outline the procedure.
Except in those cases where a customs export entry is not ordinarily required, for example, gifts up to $25 in value, other shipments up to $5 in value, et cetera, form B. 13-B is delivered by an exporter to the
Foreign Exchange Control Act collector of customs at the port of exit of the goods. This form is a combined customs export entry and foreign exchange control board form. Five copies are required, two of which are used for exchange control purposes. Where the terms of payment for an export are in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Control Act and regulations, the collector of customs approves the form B. 13-B and sends one copy to the exporter's bank aind one copy to the board.
A resident who receives United States dollars arising out of exports is required to offer them for sale to his bank, and, if the amount is more than $100, complete F.E.C.B. form C. This form is then matched by the bank with its copy of the form B.13-B covering the export in question and the bank forwards the matched forms to the board. These forms are in turn matched by the board with the copy of the form B.13-B which it received direct from customs.
The purpose of this procedure is, of course, to ensure that Canadian exports to the United States produce their value in United States dollars which are sold to a bank in Canada and thus made available to meet our requirements for United States dollars. A similar procedure applies to exports to other countries.


Mr. Fraser:: A motorist going, say from
Ottawa, to the west coast at the present time must go through the United States. If he is allowed only $25 in Canadian funds-


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is not limited to $25
Canadian funds.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said $100.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He can have the $100 in
Canadian funds.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He would have to have money for travelling in the United States.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If he needs more he could
get it by using a form H.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would it not be wise to raise that $25 so that he could carry more at any time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can bring my friend's
remarks to the attention of the board. The present regulations permit him to have $100, either in United States funds or Canadian funds or both. If he wants more than that, he can get it through a form H at his bank, which is given almost as a matter of course. The form H is made out in triplicate, and one copy must be surrendered at the border.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Cases have come to my attention in which a person has had to leave on Saturday when it was impossible to get money through the bank. Such a person

Foreign Exchange Control Act would be simply out of luck. He might have Canadian funds and be able to borrow a few United States dollars, but when he reached Canadian soil after passing through the United States he would be broke.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think most of us can go a
long way in a motor car on $100. I have never gone to the west coast by motor car myself, so I do not know just how much it costs to get from, say, Detroit, to the port of entry in Manitoba.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was before inflation.


Mr. Low:: I should like to ask the minister one question which is prompted by something the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other night when he was dealing with the amendments to the wheat board act. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said something about purchases of Canadian products being made with ECA funds. I should like to ask the minister if he would give the committee a clear statement of just what the foreign exchange control board did get out of ECA purchases in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will not take me very long to do that. The foreign exchange control board of course had nothing to do with ECA funds. The machinery by which countries who were in receipt of assistance under the ECA program were helped was this. They were authorized to purchase wheat or other commodities in Canada. It then became a problem for the country receiving the commodities to pay for them. We required payment in convertible currency, United States dollars and gold. Whether they used the actual ECA funds received from the United States ECA administration, whether they used United States dollars derived as a result of sales in the United States dollar area, or whether they used gold received from South Africa, let us say, it made not the slightest difference to us, and we would have no means of knowing where the particular funds used to buy a particular commodity came from. The foreign exchange control board would see that the commodities exported were paid for in United States dollars or their equivalent. That would be the responsibility of the board. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Solon Earl Low: I was that much interested that I obtained a copy of a statement of paid shipments from Canada under ECA. These figures arrested my attention, Mr. Chairman, and I particularly want to have the minister's interpretation of them with respect to any payments into the foreign exchange control board of dollars, gold, or whatever it may be, representing these purchases. This is what I


have in mind. In statement No. 21, issued by the economic co-operation administration, showing the cumulative totals from April 3, 1948, to March 31, 1950, there is a grand total of purchases on account of the United Kingdom of $829,100,000-that is purchases from Canada. Of that total food and agricultural commodities made up $496,200,000, and industrial commodities $322,892,000.
I noticed particularly-and to me this was a very interesting figure, in the light of the discussion that has taken place with respect to the bill to amend the wheat board act- that Great Britain was able to purchase in Canada with ECA dollars during those two years bread grains to the value of $413,162,000. That is a pretty substantial purchase. It is a pretty substantial market for Canadian bread grain products, and we should not lose sight of that.
In addition there were beef, veal, pork, lamb and mutton products to the value of $66,305,000; dairy products to the extent of $9,996,000, and Ash and fish products to the value of $6,637,000. In addition there were certain raw materials and semi-finished products to the value of $327,674,000. As to the $829,100,000 of purchases on account of the United Kingdom through ECA, I wondered if one could accept the statement that approximately that same amount of money, gold or United States funds was paid into the foreign exchange control board. If so, it seems to me that the foreign exchange control board certainly profited to a fair extent out of ECA funds.
I am also wondering what would have been the situation in the years 1948 to 1950 if those ECA purchases had not been made in Canada. That is a question that sometimes enters my mind. In his statement the other day I believe the minister said that there were rather extreme fluctuations in the dollar reserves, and he gave certain figures to substantiate that. At the present time I understand our reserves are approximately $300 million higher than they were in 1945. Are we going to be able to count on those reserves remaining at a level in the years to come which we think is pretty safe? If so, then of course relaxation of the regulations is going to be justified. If not, I wonder where we are going to get off in the years to come. Am I correct in assuming that pretty well the whole of the $829,100,000 of ECA funds did go to increase the dollar reserves of the foreign exchange control board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I would put it in that way. Unquestionably we had to be paid for the commodities we delivered to the extent that they were not paid for out

of the Canadian loan. We extended a loan to the extent of nearly a billion and a quarter. To that extent it was just a credit on the books of the Bank of Canada, and we got no immediate payment therefor, but to the extent that commodities were shipped in excess of the provision made by the loan, then they had to be paid for. I suppose it is fair to say that if ECA funds had not been made available to the extent of the $800 million odd referred to by my hon. friend, the reserves of convertible exchange of the Bank of England would have been $800 million odd lower, or they would have had to refrain from purchasing the goods.
The whole purpose of ECA was to enable those countries which for the time being were short of convertible exchange, not having got their productive systems in a condition where they could produce goods in payment for their imports, to make payment. Certainly, however, it would not have been technically correct to say that the reserves of the foreign exchange board, which is only an instrument of the government, were increased by the $823 million. We were paid for all goods we shipped, and paid in convertible exchange with the exception of credits which we ourselves provided.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to take a minute to try to explain from personal experience that these permits which are being criticized are sometimes most helpful. In the fall of 1948, with several others, I was sent overseas to the meeting of the commonwealth parliamentary association. In the bank in the small town in which I live I was advised by the manager that I should have a permit valid for the return trip. On that trip I took several hundred dollars with me. When I embarked at Halifax the customs officer asked me to surrender the permit. I informed him that I had a permit that I did not have to surrender. Very few of the hon. members accompanying me had the same type of permit. When the permit was looked over by the customs department I was informed that I could carry it with me.
I well remember that we were all lined up in the Savoy hotel in London when we were leaving to go to the continent, and were told to leave all our funds, with the exception of five pounds sterling, in the safe of the Savoy hotel. When it came my turn I informed them that I was carrying what money I had with me. It consisted of United States and Canadian travellers cheques. There was quite a discussion. When I got to Harwich and started to go through the customs, I produced the permit given to me in my own country, informed them that I
15.	1951
Foreign Exchange Control Act got the money in Canada, that I had a permit to carry it, and that I was going to take it with me.
I took it with me to the continent, and while on the continent I lent quite a bit of money to some of my friends who did not have the type of permit which would enable them to take their money with them. I was away about ten weeks, and from the time I left until I returned I showed that permit on a good many occasions. I had full authority to carry the amount of money I had in any part of the world to which I wanted to go. I did not find one official, including those in Great Britain who are pretty hard-boiled with respect to foreign exchange, who could make me surrender the travellers cheques I had in my pocket. I carried them for ten weeks. Without that permit from the foreign exchange control board I would have been on the continent with five pounds sterling in my pocket. I might have had something extra in my shoes, or might have borrowed from some of my friends. For that reason I believe it is a very fine regulation for people who are travelling outside of Canada to have a permit to show that the funds they are carrying are being carried legally with a permit issued in their own country.


Mr. Hatfield:: I should like to ask the
minister why all these forms are necessary when a Canadian exporter ships goods to the United States. Such a person would see to it that as long as United States funds are at a premium he gets his payment in United States funds. What is the position of the United States investor? If he brings his money into Canada on a C form, I think it is, can he take it out of Canada when he wishes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can elaborate too much on the use of the forms. I understand that the member for Victoria-Carleton has had a good deal of experience in filling them out. One of the purposes is to enable the foreign exchange control board to examine all external transactions and dealings in exchange to see that they conform with the current policies with respect to foreign exchange. It is for that reason that the forms are required in connection with exports, to see that that method is not used to effect an export of capital which is now prohibited.
As the house knows, capital which was in Canada prior to the beginning of the war cannot be taken out. Capital which has been brought in since then-on the forms, I imagine, referred to by the hon. member- can of course be dealt with in the ordinary

Foreign Exchange Control Act way. Other than that I can only say that I am sure the board endeavours to make the paper-work as easy as it possibly can.


Heber Harold Hatfield: ' No person is going to invest money in a country when he cannot get it out. United States investments in this country would have been ten times as great if we had not had these regulations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are getting all we want.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I know people who would have invested a lot of money in Canada if they could have been sure of getting it out of Canada. They did not want their money tied up here. I presume that if the United States dollar was at a discount we would not need the forms to export to the United States. Would you have to have forms then?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We would have to have forms as long as we maintained exchange control.


Heber Harold Hatfield: That is why I am protesting against exchange control. When he introduced this bill the minister said he was going to have a stand-by board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I said this was in essence stand-by legislation.


Heber Harold Hatfield: This is the same board. You have to have the same staff to examine all these forms. Every exporter in Canada has to have a staff for the sole purpose of making out these forms.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A short time ago the hon.
member for Greenwood moved an amendment to send this matter to a committee. The Canada Gazette, page 2186, says that the foreign exchange control regulations established by order in council P. C. 5604 of November 3, 1949, are revoked, "and the annexed regulations, entitled foreign exchange control regulations, are hereby made and established in substitution for the regulations revoked." There are thirty pages of new regulations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a consolidation of the old regulations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but that is all the more reason why the banking and commerce committee should have an opportunity of going through these regulations and understanding just what is in them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We voted upon that and
disposed of it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know we did, but that does not prevent one from speaking about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to raise a point of order, but the hon. member is out of order in referring to it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think it is common sense to have this matter discussed in the banking and commerce committee.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the position now of the United States investor? Can he bring money into the country, invest it and take it back?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Can he take back his capital gains?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Can he take back his
dividends?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If he is, for want of a better term, a post-war investor.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the
minister intend to say "post-war" in the literal sense of the term?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Capital which was here before September, 1939, in essence is frozen. The holder of that capital can sell it, but he must reinvest. That restriction does not apply to capital which has been brought in since.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One of the
things I wanted to discuss if we had been able to have a committee was the question of the punitive clauses. Could the minister say what has been the history of those? Has there been less or more recourse to prosecution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have some statistics here on that. I have a table showing the convictions for offences under the Foreign Exchange Control Act from 1947 to 1950. It shows the number of cases, the fines, the character of the offences, and so on. Hon. members might wish to have it placed on Hansard. I do not think I shall attempt to read it. For instance, in 1950, there were 125 prosecutions, and fines totalling $196,114. The bulk of those were as a result of illegal dealing in foreign exchange. If it is the desire of hon. members, I shall put this on Hansard.


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the minister leave to put the table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The table is as follows:

Canadian Wheat Board Act
Convictions for Offences under Foreign Exchange Control Act 1947 to 1950
Attempts by resident travellers to export currency
without the necessary permits	
Exceeding annual travel ration by making false
declarations in applications for U.S. funds	
Other travel offences	
Residents failing to sell U.S. dollars to authorized
dealers	
Illegal dealing in foreign exchange	
Non-residents importing unofficial Canadian funds and acquiring U.S. funds illegally in Canada or
illegally attempting to export Canadian funds____
Other offences


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed* to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had been discussing the amendment and the subamendment to the wheat board act when the house adjourned at eleven o'clock last Tuesday. I now propose to complete those remarks.
Just before the adjournment on that day I had said that much more is at issue in what is now before the house than the subject matter of this motion or the amount of money that is involved in the payment that has been announced. The statement that was made in this house, and which first brought this subject before us, was by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). On Friday, March 2, 1951, he informed the house that a decision had been reached as to the amount that was to be paid to terminate the five-year wheat pool; and after referring to the agreement with the government of the United Kingdom, and the
1947	1948	1949	1950No.	Fines	No.	Fines	No.	Fines	No.	Fines29	$7,679	105	$9,179	103	$12,457	63	$7,17720	1,530	41	3,886	9	85020	4,245	8	2,10516	9,651	39	8,027	23	12,470	25	38,20535	19,020	10	4,400	5	335	3	57,0006	4,300	20	26,720	5	2,550	22	25,176	9	4,550	17	90,77791	$34,805	216	$75,032	201	$37,943	125 $196,114	
fact that the government of the United Kingdom had made it clear that no further payment would be made by them under the agreement under consideration, he then said this, as recorded at page 833 of Hansard:
Hon. members may also have seen an announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on February 20 that the United Kingdom will not draw further on the remainder of the credit of $1,250 million which was made available in May, 1946, and which expires on December 31, 1951.
The government has decided to recommend to parliament that an amount equal to the balance of the United Kingdom credit, namely, $65 million, be added to the sums now awaiting distribution in settlement of the five-year pool.
I pointed out that from the time that announcement was made nothing has been placed before the members of this house which would make it possible to determine by what process of arithmetic the figure of $65 million was arrived at. In the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as recorded in Hansard for Thursday, March 8, 1951, a number of figures were put on record which explained what the resulting payments to the farmers would be after this $65 million had been paid into the wheat pool and the ultimate distribution had been made. No explanation was given as to how the government decided that $65 million was the right figure. No explanation has yet been placed before this house to make it clear to us how we have this extraordinary coincidence or how it comes about that the figure to be paid to terminate the five-year wheat pool should happen to be precisely the figure that remained unclaimed by the government of the United Kingdom of that loan which had been made available to them. Since we have not yet received that explanation, I submit to the house that there is no possible explanation except that the government had set its mind on persuading the British government to take up the $65 million, and pay that as the amount remaining as an obligation by

Canadian Wheat Board Act them under the contract, and that this government would then be in a position to say to the farmers affected: This is all we were able to get from the government of the United Kingdom; we regret we could not get you any more, but this is the balance; and then would make the distribution accordingly. If there is some other explanation, let us have it. If there is some other place from which this $65 million figure was obtained, let us have it. If there is some other way in which the computation was made, then let us know so that the members of this house may have reason to decide whether the figure should have been a great deal more or whether it should have been this much.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave an argument which made it clear that, in his opinion, not one additional cent was owing under the contract. He challenged that statement when I made it the other night; but I read the Hansard record of what he had said, and it was quite clear that he was not suggesting that there was a balance owing by the government of the United Kingdom. It was something quite different. Let me refer to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, as recorded in Hansard of March 12, 1951, at page 1172:
It was never suggested to the British government at any time-[DOT]
These are the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
-that they were in legal default under the agreement. It was pointed out, however, that the existence of dissatisfaction among wheat producers in Canada about the results of the agreement could have unfortunate consequence for future trade relationships between our two countries and that the British government might wish to reconsider their earlier decisions. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), made similar representations a few weeks ago. As the house knows, however, the British government did not see fit to make any further payments.
That was a perfectly legal and proper decision for them to make under the agreement. The Canadian government, while recognizing that the legal obligations of the British government under the agreement had been fulfilled, took a different view of the over-all results and decided to pay into the five-year pool the $65 million that remained under the United Kingdom loan act.
That is all that we are told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, namely that they decided to pay into the five-year pool the $65 million that remained under the United Kingdom loan act. That statement of course is not literally correct. They are not paying in the amount under the loan. They are paying in from the treasury to the pool an amount which happens to be the same figure as would have been available to the British government if they had decided to take that up for the purpose of making an additional payment of that amount on the contract which

has been referred to. That is a much different thing indeed. Therefore the Minister of Trade and Commerce has neither by suggestion nor otherwise given us any indication of how that $65 million was arrived at. On the contrary, I submit that there is no other explanation than the fact that in his case as in the other case the only relationship the $65 million has to the measure of dissatisfaction expressed by the wheat producers affected by this contract is that this was the figure in their mind which they were trying to get the British government to pay under this device they were seeking to employ.
Do not let anyone suggest that this is an interpretation not borne out by the facts. There is nothing else that the facts support at present. If there is some other explanation, then the members of this house are entitled to it; and they certainly will be entitled to it long before this $65 million figure comes up. But we are now discussing the broad question of this contract, its effect upon the western farmers and the manner in which the government has been handling their affairs.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out that this was a highly satisfactory agreement. The Minister of Agriculture has also pointed out that it was a highly satisfactory agreement if only the British government had lived up to their obligation. That is the position he has taken. A suggestion was made the other night, which I did not have the opportunity to deal with before eleven o'clock, that the Minister of Agriculture had not, in fact, left any such impression. It would have been extraordinary if the newspapers of this country, from one side to the other, had been so uniformly wrong in this particular case as they have been; because the newspapers right across this country have interpreted the words of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as meaning that the British government had failed to live up to their contract. And the newspapers right across this country uniformly, without any regard to their political persuasion, without exception so far as I am aware, have pointed out the rather striking difference between the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture in this case.
The Minister of Agriculture had no intention of leaving any other thought in the minds of the members of this house but the thought that the British government had failed to live up to their obligations. These are his words at page 1062 of Hansard, after referring to the statements of Mr. Strachey when he was in Winnipeg in 1946. He points out that Mr. Strachey had dealt

not only with the possibility of higher prices, but also lower prices; and he seeks to emphasize his own point of view that Mr. Strachey's remarks were devoted to the idea of high prices and the possibility of paying more under the "have regard to'' clause. I am not going to debate what Mr. Strachey's words mean. I think that they are open to interpretations different perhaps from those that have been put upon them. However, he is quite capable of dealing with that in such manner as he sees fit. I am pointing out only that the Minister of Agriculture took great pains to show that the representative of the British government, who was in this country in 1946, did leave the impression that they were prepared to do certain things which the Minister of Agriculture now says they were not prepared to carry out. And then he uses these simple words, which cannot be misinterpreted, and I quote his words as recorded on page 1062 of Hansard of March 8, 1951:
The fact that the United Kingdom did not estimate correctly should not justify their refusal to pay.
These words are not in conformity with the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Agriculture leaves no doubt that there was a refusal to pay something that he claims was owing. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that there was nothing owing. He points out that there was dissatisfaction, and most certainly it is only natural that there should be dissatisfaction when the Minister of Agriculture has been placing the interpretation on this clause which he has placed upon it for the farmers affected by this contract; but that is something quite apart from what is owing on this contract, and therefore we have diametrically opposed statements by the two ministers.
I do wish to deal with the effect of that position taken by the Minister of Agriculture. I regret very much to hear the statements that were made in this house on Tuesday night in regard to the government of Great Britain. I am not frequently accused of being a socialist. I do not believe in the doctrine of socialism as I understand it.


Mr. Ferrie:: Why back them up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I have expressed my own opinions in regard to that doctrine in understandable terms, which I suggest is not always the case in some other statements that are made about socialism in this house. Nevertheless I think it is most improper for us in this house to debate a subject of this 80709-82
Canadian Wheat Board Act kind upon the basis that there is a government of one political point of view or another in power in the United Kingdom at this time.
I do not believe in socialist doctrines, as I understand them. I accord to those who do the good faith which they are entitled to be accorded in regard to their political opinions. But I am satisfied that the present British government, no matter what its political point of view, will display that same integrity that British governments always have displayed in dealing with their contractual obligations. I think it would be a most unfortunate precedent if at this time, no matter what the political point of view of the present government of the United Kingdom may be, we should start to debate issues between this government and their government, this house and their house, upon the basis of the political point of view of the two governments. I must say in fairness that I cannot recall the Liberal members in this house having sought to justify any misunderstanding between them and an earlier government in the United Kingdom on the ground that this was a Liberal government and that there was a Conservative government there. Nor in earlier days, when the opposite was the case, have I seen that happen. I think it is most unfortunate that a minister of the crown, and one of the senior ministers, should have left the impression that he left in this house.


An hon. Member:: And deliberately.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, and deliberately left, that the government of the United Kingdom had failed to live up to its obligations. Never mind haggling over whether they were legal obligations or not. Moral obligations of governments within this commonwealth are equally important, and in this case I think hon. members will be only too pleased to echo the words of the Minister -of Trade and Commerce when he said at page 1173 of Hansard:
1 deplore the suggestion that the British government has not played fair with the Canadian people.
Which minister of this government are we to support? Which minister of this government is telling us the position that we are called upon to accept? It must be remembered that no matter whether we agree with what the government puts forward or not, we are called upon to accept their statements of fact. That is the way that our system operates.
The whole principle of responsible government depends upon the belief that the members of the House of Commons can rely upon statements of fact put forward in this house by members of the crown. Our system is not the same as the system in the United States. The United States have a different


Mr. Croll:: He said Korea.


George Alexander Drew: It covered a wider field on an
earlier occasion.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Are you going out to help him?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for
Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) will be a great help.
Mr- Ferrie:	They will need lots of it.


George Alexander Drew: They certainly will. It is very
noticeable that this is a subject being raised1 by those who come from that province, where this might easily become the subject of discussion. In addition to the other reasons I have suggested for the clarification of this issue I put forward this further reason why the issue should be clarified beyond all possible doubt.
It will be unfortunate if this becomes the central feature of a provincial election in Saskatchewan or in any other province because this is a matter which after all is the responsibility of the government of Canada, It would be one of the most unfortunate things that could happen in this country at this time when mutual good will and the utmost spirit of co-operation is of so much importance as between the nations of the commonwealth. It would be most unfortunate if an issue of this kind were carried onto the hustings in any province or in any election, whether it be provincial or federal. For that reason it is to be most earnestly hoped that the uncertainties which now exist as to which minister speaks for the government should be clarified without further delay.
There is another thing that should be clarified. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has made it abundantly clear that he does not think there is anything owing by the British under the contract. If there is nothing owing by the British under the contract, there is nothing owing by anyone else because the contract was between the British government and the Canadian government. If there is money owing, it is money owing for an entirely different reason. It is money owing: because the government has mishandled this matter and there is justification for the feeling to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred, and the government therefore is trying to make good its default-That would be a sound justification. There could be no other justification.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
If that is so, let us be quite clear. Is this an attempt to reduce in some way to arithmetical terms the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he said, and I quote from page 1172 of Hansard:
It was pointed out, however, that the existence of dissatisfaction among wheat producers in Canada about the results of the agreement could have unfortunate consequence-
Then he went on at a later point to say that the government had decided to pay the $65 million that remained under the United Kingdom loan to terminate the five-year wheat pool. No suggestion then was made that this was paid as the balance owing under the contract. On the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce it could not be because the contract was fulfilled.
So far as anything that has been placed before this house is concerned

 I qualify my remarks in that way because the government knows that it has a great deal more information than we have received-on the basis of what has already been put forward the only possible explanation that we have is that the government believes that the farmers who were compelled to deliver their wheat did not receive a fair deal and that they should make a payment to compensate them for the dissatisfaction to which they have referred.
I have made it clear that there is a moral obligation in every case where the government takes over grain, agricultural production, services or anything else under compulsion. At a time when this house has just passed emergency legislation with powers so sweeping that it brings practically our whole economy under the government by order in council it is of the utmost importance that the people of this country shall have confidence that where the government takes over anything under compulsion, whether it be wheat, agricultural production, industrial production or services, there should be fair compensation for what is taken over.
Therefore, on the basis of demonstrated moral obligation-I emphasize those words "demonstrated moral obligation"-I am confident that the members of this house would support whatever payment seemed appropriate upon the basis of the evidence submitted which showed that money should be paid. How much that is the members of this house still wait to be informed.


An hon. Member:: What do you think?


George Alexander Drew: The members of this house are not called upon to do crystal-gazing when they are asked to decide upon the payment of millions of dollars. The government did not just look into a crystal when it decided to


make the payment of $65 million. Surely the government had some other yardstick by which to gauge the thing that was to be done than simply the fact that there was $65 million which the government of the United Kingdom could still collect on a loan. We have not yet received that information.
These facts should be before us. The proposal has been made already by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) that there should be a royal commission to inquire into what amount is thought properly owing under these transactions. I submit that that is the one satisfactory way that clear and understandable evidence can be obtained as to what should be paid to meet this moral obligation, if that is the basis upon which the government is making the payment. Therefore I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to agree to the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the terms under which this payment should be made and the measure of compensation which should be paid to the wheat producers because of the loss they have sustained through the operations of the government in dealing with the wheat which was taken from them by compulsion.
Having said that, I would point out that it is important that the members know the basis upon which this is to be done. If the government is putting forward a proposition that the government should compensate agricultural and other producers for losses which they have sustained through the action of the government where their products have been taken over, then that principle should apply with equal force to all agricultural production as to other production in Canada. I repeat the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this is not a payment under the contract. If the payment is the result of the adoption of the principle of compensating those whose products have been taken by compulsion for the losses resulting from the action of the government, then let us know that that is the principle and let us establish that as the principle in relation to everything that is taken over under compulsion, no matter what it may be.
Of course, that would apply to other agricultural producers as well, to hog producers, to cheese producers, to fruit growers and to all others who would be affected.


Mr. McLure:: Do not forget potatoes.


George Alexander Drew: And to potato growers and to others who would be affected by any action of this kind that might become necessary under the very sweeping powers which have been assumed by the government within these past few weeks. I am placing this proposal before the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) because he is the only one who can

now solve this problem. I am urging that he state on the one hand what the principle is, and, having stated that, that he inform the house that a royal commission will be appointed to inquire into the amount that should be paid under the principle put forward.
For the reason that I have now explained I do not propose to vote for the subamendment. As I said in my earlier remarks, we have nothing before us to show first of all what the principle is and, second, how the amount would be arrived at. I said earlier that the amount might be 50 cents a bushel; it might be 25 cents a bushel; it might be 10 cents a bushel. We want to know what it is, and I believe members of the house should have information as to how the figure is arrived at before they vote substantial sums to those who deserve it under any principle that may be established in this house at the instance of the government.
I would point out that this is not a figure that can be established with certainty in view of the fact that the premier of Saskatchewan, who has displayed some interest in this matter, himself has made it clear that he is not definite because he has said it might be a figure between 15 and 25 cents. By that statement he has supported my contention that this figure is not a determined figure. Therefore for that reason I do not think we would be advancing the interests of the western farmers by seeking to leave the impression that a fixed figure has been established. Therefore I propose not to support the subamendment.
Having said that, I wish to repeat once again what I said earlier. We support the principle that, where the government takes over wheat, agricultural production or anything else by compulsion, there is a moral obligation to make fair and just compensation. We want to know what that fair and just compensation is, and we have proposed the manner in which it can be done. Before leaving these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to the even greater issue that is before the house. This is not something to be lightly brushed off as some hon. members would brush it off. As was said in an editorial in one of the western papers a few days ago, there sometimes seems to be little use in talking about principle to this government because it does not understand principle. When ancient traditions are recalled, when principles which have been established as the basis of our parliamentary system are referred to, they are treated as though these were simply uninteresting points put forward in a debate for no other purpose than to criticize the government.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
This parliament did not always look at principles of this kind in that way. I should like to refer hon. members to an excellent book entitled "The Government of Canada" by Professor Dawson. At pages 206 and 207 there is a very clear, simple and forceful discussion of the principle of cabinet solidarity, the obligation of ministers to speak not as individuals but as members of a government, and to be answerable as members of a government for what they say. I quote these words from Dawson at page 206:
It follows that all members of a cabinet must consider the views of one another in making any important announcement or in taking a decision which might be considered as involving government policy; and this leads in practice to prior consultation and discussion in cabinet, or at least, with the prime minister. This done, if the minister secures agreement on his proposal, the cabinet will support it to a man; failing such agreement, the dissenting member must acquiesce in the rejection of his ideas or tender his resignation.
That is a long established practice. A minister may often be called upon to state his views as a member of the government when he has not an opportunity to consult either the Prime Minister or other members of the government. The obligation then is to consult them, and then either to be able to acquiesce in the result of that discussion or in the alternative to resign. That is no suggestion being brought forward today in this house for the first time in relation to this particular subject. That is a basic practice in regard to the collective responsibility of government to the house and to the people of Canada.
In addition to the other responsibilities raised by the discussion which has taken place, with the utmost seriousness and earnestness I place before the Prime Minister the proposition stated in Dawson's book on "The Government of Canada", a statement which simply reflects the tradition and the practices of many years. I ask that the conflicting position of these two ministers be reconciled, or, in the interests of the stature of the government in the minds of the people of Canada and its relationship with Great Britain, that a reconciliation be effected or the ordinary course be followed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising at this time to agree to the suggestion that a royal commission should be appointed nor to discuss any prospective provincial election in Saskatchewan or elsewhere. Nor am I speaking for effect in any other kind of election to those who have been called the hog growers, potato growers, cheese producers or any other kind of producer. Nor am I rising to quarrel with the citation from Professor Dawson that the leader of the opposition
1282	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act (Mr. Drew) has made. However, the leader of the opposition stated on Tuesday evening, as recorded on pages 1228 and 1229 of Hansard:
* . . with the divergence of opinion between his two senior ministers, the Prime Minister should tell us exactly what the principle is under which the payment is being made . . .
I intend to reply very briefly, first about this alleged divergence of opinion which is now referred to as a conflicting position in the government, and then about the principle under which the payment is being recommended. Obviously in any government under a parliamentary system all ministers-and I am not speaking of this government in particular-do not necessarily always have the same thoughts, nor do they necessarily always use the same expressions in communicating their thoughts. There are many matters of interest to human beings about which they do not always have the same views. If it were otherwise it would be very much simpler to have a one-man government. Our system is cabinet government, and cabinet government involves cabinet responsibility and cabinet solidarity. As I understand it cabinet solidarity requires agreement on policies and on conclusions. With respect to this "have regard to" clause, all the members of the government are agreed on the four essential points, and they are the only points which affect policy and conclusions.
The first point is that the United Kingdom had discharged all its legal obligations under the wheat agreement. Everyone recognized that was a binding contract for two years at $1.55 per bushel, and it was a contract which bound the United Kingdom government to take the number of bushels stipulated in the third and following year at a price to be agreed upon, which would not be less than $1.25 for the third year and $1 for the fourth year. That was all there was in the agreement as a binding agreement on the parties. There was a statement that in fixing the prices, which would not be less than $1.25 in the third year, the United Kingdom government would have regard to the price that was paid as the agreed price for the two first years; and that in fixing the price for the fourth year they would have regard to the price that was paid during the first year; the price for the fourth year being not less than $1. There was no obligation on them other than the undertaking to take the stipulated quantity in the third year at a price which they did not have to agree would be more than $1.25, and to take the agreed quantity in the fourth year at a price which they did not have to agree would be more than $1. No one contended there was any other legal obligation.


The second point on which there was agreement was that, at the end of May, 1950, the Canadian government accepted as the decision of the United Kingdom government that they had discharged all their legal obligations under that contract. The third point was that the Canadian wheat growers believed there was a continuing obligation under the "have regard to" clause which had not been discharged in full and that, in the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in the speech referred to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), "the British government itself was partly to blame" for this expectation of the wheat producers because of the speech that had been made in Winnipeg by the Right Hon. Mr. Strachey, after he had listened from the galleries of this House of Commons to a speech delivered by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Bracken.
Now, we all felt the Canadian wheat growers had understandable grounds for this expectation that there would be more done under the "have regard to" clause than had been done, and our government hoped- again I use the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the speech referred to by the leader of the opposition-"that the British government could have seen the advantage to them of making some further payments to the Canadian wheat growers." On that third point we were all agreed.
The fourth point upon which we were agreed was that the Canadian government should make a contribution to the five-year pool because producers had been led, both by United Kingdom ministers and by Canadian ministers, to expect that something more substantial would be done under the "have regard to" clause than had been done, and because the government of the United Kingdom had not seen fit to do anything more under that clause. I repeat that all the members of the government are agreed on these four points, and these are the only points about which there is any matter of policy or any matter of conclusion.
As to the principle on which this amount of $65 million-


Major James William Coldwell: Before the Prime Minister
leaves that point, I notice he has said that it had been agreed that all legal obligations under the contract-


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: On Monday, at page 1133 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
The United Kingdom authorities took the position in May of 1950 "that all obligations under the 'have regard to' clause might be considered to have been taken care of."

It was not qualified by the word "legal," and I think that is important.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: There are no obligations, in the strict sense of obligations, that are not legal obligations. As the hon. member knows that was precisely what was being discussed in this house when the right hon. minister from the United Kingdom was sitting in the gallery. The hon. member knows that was what he was dealing with when he spoke, I think it was to the Canadian Club, in Winnipeg. I think the hon. member will agree with me that the wheat growers of the western provinces expected from that statement, and from similar statements made by our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by our minister of trade and commerce at that time, Mr. MacKinnon, that there would be substantial consideration resulting from the obligation of the "have regard to" clause. It was on their assumption that there was going to be something substantial coming to them as a consequence of the "have regard to" clause that they went happily along during those years, seeing to it that the wheat contract was carried out.
There is no doubt that when the government of the United Kingdom took the position that all obligations, in the sense of obligations, had been fulfilled, and that nothing more was to be done by them as a consequence of the "have regard to" clause, those expectations were not met. I think that is indisputable. We were all agreed we were not alone responsible for those expectations in the minds of the wheat producers of the western provinces. Because of the principle of solidarity invoked by the leader of the opposition, and because of the declarations that had been made by the Minister of Agriculture, by the then minister of trade and commerce and by the right hon. gentlemen from the United Kingdom, we all felt that those having such expectations should not remain in the disappointed state in which they were left by the position taken by the government of the United Kingdom that it would make no further payment as a consequence of the "have regard to" clause.
Hon. members recall that when the price for the third year was being discussed it was expressly agreed that a price of $2 would be paid for that crop, and that the matter of giving consideration to the "have regard to" clause would be postponed, When the price for the fourth year crop was again fixed at $2 it was agreed that consideration of what should be done under the "have regard to" clause would be still further postponed. It was not until the matter was raised by the representatives of the British government when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce
Canadian Wheat Board Act was in London in May of 1950 that the matter came to a head. The position they then took was that they had fulfilled' all obligations under the contract. We felt that they had fulfilled all legal obligations, but that they had not met the expectations that had been raised by the declarations made in 1946 in respect of the effect this "have regard to" clause would have on the amounts put into the pool. We came to the conclusion that the government of the United Kingdom having decided that it would do no more, we would recommend to parliament that the sum of $65 million would be put into the pool to be added to what was left there for distribution as a final payment.


Mr. Rowe:: Why $65 million?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Now, why $65 million? From the start it had been clearly understood there could not be any mathematical calculation of the consequence of this "have regard to" clause. I remind hon. members of the statement made by the then prime minister when the price was set for the third year of the contract; I refer to the public statement that was made at that time. He said:
Having in mind the magnitude of the agreement and the long-term security which it provides, a precise arithmetical calculation of the difference in price was not suggested.
That has been the position from the start, that there could not be any mathematical calculation of something expressed in the terms used in this agreement.
When this decision was made and accepted by the government of Canada as being the position taken, and the position they were entitled to take, in the United Kingdom, there was still $65 million that had not been drawn from the credit provided by the agreed loan of $1,250 million. Had the government of the United Kingdom seen fit to draw that amount of $65 million and use it as a settlement of anything legitimately or properly expected under the "have regard to" clause, the government of Canada would not have felt required to do anything more, and would have been quite content to say that everything that could reasonably be expected as a consequence of the "have regard to" clause had been discharged by that payment.
I am not going to repeat the argument made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that the price which in fact was paid for the fourth year crop would have provided a sum of $35 million had there not been, in the course of that crop year, devaluation of the Canadian dollar in terms of the American dollar. The government of the United Kingdom declared that it was not going to use any more of the undrawn
1284	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act portion of the $1,250 million loan which they were entitled to draw at any time up to December 31, 1951, and which, had they seen fit to draw it and use it for other purposes, would have required the delivery of $65 million worth of Canadian production in this year 1951. They decided that they were not going to draw anything more or put any burden on Canadian production as a resuit of any drawings under that credit.
Without attempting to make any mathematical calculation, but taking a rough approximation of what could be regarded as just and fair, the Canadian government decided to recommend to parliament that a sum equal to the $65 million be put into the pool because that placed no heavier burden on the production of this year than would have been placed upon it by the drawing and use for other purposes of the available $65 million of the credit. There was no other calculation made or attempted.
On all these points there was agreement.
It seems to me that it is not going to make much difference to the producer in western Canada what I, or the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) may think it would have been desirable for the United Kingdom to have done because of the expectations that had been raised in 1946 and that had continued as a result of the postponing of consideration of what should be done about the "have regard to" clause right up to the time the contract had been completely fulfilled. It is not going to matter much to them whether I think we should have done it or whether I think that the government of the United Kingdom should have done it. It is not going to matter much to them whether, it being done by us, it is limited to that amount or whether, in their opinion, it should be more, or whether in the opinion of someone who does not derive any benefit it should be less. On the facts we in the government are agreed. On the policy we are agreed. On the recommendation we make to parliament we are agreed. On the question of one's personal opinion of how each party has behaved, not under a contractual, enforceable obligation but under a set of expectations raised by declarations made by cabinet ministers, we are not going to have much effect upon the thinking of those who are interested as producers or those who are interested as taxpayers.
I do not think there is going to be much cheering anywhere over this decision. But I think it is the kind of decision that no one can say is an unfair and unreasonable one to make under all the circumstances which have now been quite fully discussed.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I am asking this question because I think this is a point that should be cleared up. Between the time of the return of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the adoption by the cabinet of the memorandum that he mentioned, was any attempt made to re-open negotiations on this point?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was. When I realized, as I did shortly after the special session that we had in the autumn-


Major James William Coldwell: I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) misunderstood me, Mr. Speaker. I mean between the time when the minister came back and June 5 when he made the statement in the house. That is the point I had in mind.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: No. There was one communication which I think we will lay on the table. I am told that an answer has been received from London, and I think I shall be able tomorrow to file a minute of the discussions in London and the communication that was sent from Canada on that minute before June 5, 1950.
But following June 5, 1950, as hon. members will recall, last summer there were many things which I at least had to regard as matters of urgency and priority. The first that occurred was the unexpected death of the former prime minister; the next was the unexpected death of the former minister of labour. There were other special circumstances arising in connection with the Korean crisis and the decisions we had to make in respect thereof. That was followed almost immediately by, first of all, the threat and then the realization of a general tie-up in transportation which necessitated the calling of a special session of parliament somewhat earlier than we had intended to call it for the purpose of dealing with the Korean situation. Just as soon as those matters which, I must confess, occupied my mind to the exclusion of domestic problems other than the railway strike at that period, had been dealt with, I came to realize to what extent there was this persisting feeling of disappointment at the attitude taken by the United Kingdom government in respect to the "have regard to" clause. I knew that we had accepted that as the decision of the United Kingdom government, and it was understandable that they would consider that it should not be mentioned to them again.
I felt that it would be unfair to the government of the United Kingdom not to bring to their notice what I knew about the feeling

as it existed in Canada, and about the way in which that feeling and this expectation had developed, and why it had developed.
When Mr. Attlee was here I ventured to mention it to him, telling him that I was not making any request on behalf of our government that the United Kingdom do anything more, but that I felt it would not be fair for them not to know what the situation was. I suggested that if he had no objection I would raise it again with the chancellor of the exchequer when I went over for the prime ministers' conference in January; and I did so. But at no time did I suggest that there was any legal obligation, and at no time did I suggest that we had not accepted as their position the one they took in May of 1950. But I did suggest to them that they should consider whether or not in their own interest it would be wise to do something more about the "have regard to" clause, and I put the facts, as they had been placed before the members of this house, before them. Shortly after my return I was informed that they had considered my representations and had come to the conclusion that they were not going to re-open the matter.
Thereupon there was a suggestion that the right hon. Minister of Agriculture himself go over and see if he would not be able to persuade them that it would be in their interest to do something more. While it was suggested to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and to me, that that might be some reflection on us because we had both discussed the matter, we both said that we were not sensitive on that point, and that if the Minister of Agriculture could bring about any other decision we would rejoice with him in that other decision.
Now, when he returned and told us that it was useless we said, there is nothing more we can do that will have any possibility whatsoever of getting anything further done by the government of the United Kingdom, and we have to decide whether or not in these circumstances there is responsibility upon us to do anything; and we decided-and we come before parliament agreed upon that policy and conclusion-to recommend to parliament this contribution of $65 million to be added to the price of the 1,400 million odd bushels of wheat put into the pool in the five years to which it applied.


Mr. Wright:: There is just one question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. Was there any consultation with the representatives of the western wheat pools or the advisory committee of the wheat board between the time the Minister of Trade and Commerce returned from England, in the 80709-83
15,	1951	1285
Canadian Wheat Board Act latter part of May, and the time the government accepted the proposals that he brought back from the British government with regard to the final settlement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no consultation with the advisory board or the wheat pool between the return of the minister and the acceptance of the proposals. The proposals were proposals for the purchase of a certain portion of the 1950 crop. We did not treat as a proposal their declaration that they had fulfilled all their obligations under the contract. We treated that as their decision, and we accepted it as their decision.


Percy Ellis Wright: You accepted it, though, as a final settlement without consultation with the producers or their representatives.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was no consultation at that time. We accepted that as being the decision arrived at, and being the decision which implied that they had fulfilled all the legal obligations that the contract provided.


Major James William Coldwell: As a government you did not dispute that point.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We did not dispute that decision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were in accord with it.


William Earl Rowe: Will the Prime Minister permit another question? Did the government submit to the wheat board the issue as to the adequacy of $65 million?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, the government did not.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On a point of order, we are
not in committee of the whole house now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do
not wish to make another speech, but I have one comment to make. I am sure the Prime Minister will realize that it is very disappointing, in answer to the very earnest request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that we should have some basis on which we could assess this grant of $65 million, to be given the merely accidental, if it was merely accidental, fact that there was $65 million to be drawn down under the British loan. That seems, as I say, to put it mildly, a very unconvincing reason for having arrived at this amount.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is an opinion which, if the hon. member were a minister of my cabinet, would not be an opinion that I would share with him; but the fact of not sharing it, as an opinion, would not require me to request him to resign:

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: In rising to
take part in this debate which has already been very well covered from every angle, I would like to deal with three things: first, the wheat agreement; does the United Kingdom owe the Canadian farmer anything, and does the Canadian government owe the farmer?
When the wheat agreement was before the house in August 1946 I supported that agreement; so did the whole of this group, and I can remember there was a great deal of criticism owing to the fact that the floor prices for wheat the last two years in the agreement were to be $1.25 for the third year, and $1.00 for the fourth year, and at that time it was brought to the attention of the house that we expected the government would maintain prices at their then levels. But even then there were signs of inflation, as far as the farmer was concerned, when he went to purchase anything.
It can be noted too that while most people expected wheat to go down on the world market, it steadily increased. When the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of this group, was talking about allowing prices to rise for the things the farmer had to buy, the Minister of Agriculture rose and stated that if, at the end of the agreement, it proved to be necessary, the government of Canada could appropriate funds to compensate the wheat farmers, just as the government had already appropriated $200 million for the protection of the prices of other farm products.
Now to me that was an assurance from the minister that, should the cost of production of wheat continue to rise, some compensatory adjustment would be made by this government, but not necessarily by the British government.
We in this group have always supported the wheat board, not that we think it is perfect, but we are satisfied at this time that they are in no way to blame for this situation. The majority of the farmers today believe in the wheat board in the marketing of our wheat.
We now arrive at the question: Does the United Kingdom owe us anything on the agreement that was made? This group has never argued, as the grain trade and the Conservative party have argued, that the British government under the "have regard to" clause owed a sum equal to the difference between the price of class II wheat and the price paid under the four-year contract. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in his statement made in the house in this debate, agrees with this position. I am convinced I have the support of this group in the contention that had there not been a
British contract class II wheat would probably not have reached the price it did. We should also remember that had all this wheat been thrown on a speculative market the farmers would not have received the price they did.
I think the statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce made in the house was a good, sound argument that the British government had met their obligations. He said the British took the position that they had fulfilled their obligations, and I gathered from the minister's statement that in his opinion this was true.
I understand the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when in England discussed the matter. He has stated so recently. Last month the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) flew to London also, and the Prime Minister has since made a statement in which he said:
The United Kingdom authorities took the position in May of 1950 "that all obligations under the 'have regard to' clause might be considered to have been taken care of." The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that this was a matter which could only be settled by the Canadian cabinet on his return to Ottawa. After discussion with his colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce advised the chancellor of the exchequer of the United Kingdom that the Canadian government was in accord with the conclusions in the agreed record of the meeting held with the United Kingdom authorities while he was in London. That is one of the documents for which their consent to table has been requested. In other words, the Canadian government accepted as the position of the United Kingdom that they had discharged their obligations under the agreement.
I feel sure that this statement clears up the United Kingdom position. The United Kingdom dees not owe a further payment because, as the Prime Minister has said, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, on his return from the United' Kingdom, after discussion with his colleagues, agreed that the United Kingdom had discharged their obligations under the agreement.
Now let us look at whether the Canadian government owes the farmer anything. As long as I have been connected with the farm movement in Manitoba, the greatest desire of any farmer has been to have stability; but it was not good enough to stabilize wheat prices and then allow the cost of production to shoot higher and higher. This is one of the main grievances of the western farmer today.
The government broke faith with the western farmer. It set the price of wheat for five years, and it allowed farmers' costs to keep rising. Other agricultural producers had their prices set also; but their prices were reviewed every year and they had an opportunity of making representations to the government that their cost of production should be considered or changed.

Another very serious point with the western farmer is that from March 1, 1945, to February 17, 1947, he was compelled to subsidize the Canadian consumer by providing wheat at $1.25 to enable the consumer to get cheaper flour, hence cheaper bread. Canadian consumers, during that period of 1945 to 1947, were supplied with 160 million bushels of wheat at $1.25 when the price received under the British contract was $1.55. This, according to the figures which have been brought out in the house, would amount to approximately $48 million.
I should like to quote at this point from the Manitoba Co-Operator of March 8, 1951, at which point I find they have set out clearly what I have been attempting to say. It is as follows:
As far as the taxpayers are concerned they owed the wheat producers a very minimum of $48 million because of the fact the government mistakenly and arbitrarily imposed on the wheat producers a subsidy of this kind by requiring wheat to be sold to the mills during the period March 1, 1945, to February 17, 1947, at $1.25 a bushel, when all other buyers were paying $1.55, and sometimes more. This amounted to approximately $48 million and very definitely constituted a subsidy from the wheat grower to the Canadian consumer, reflected in the price of his bread. The difference between $48 million and the $65 million now made available is $17 million which amounts to about 11 cents a bushel on the total amount of wheat involved.
These are some of the reasons why farmers in western Canada are entitled to a payment of more than 8.3 cents.
The government failed to maintain prices. They allowed prices to go away up while we had the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture that the producer was protected under the wheat board act, just as other producers were protected under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
In summing up I would say that the wheat agreement served a good purpose. The farmer has always asked and continues to ask for stability. The United Kingdom does not owe us anything. They have carried out their part of the bargain. And last of all 8-3 cents will not compensate the farmer for the contribution he has made to the consumer by supplying wheat at $1.25 when the world price was closer to $2.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: It is only four point something.


William Scottie Bryce: The payment of 8-3 cents is very disappointing to the wheat farmers, who had been expecting more, and it is now creating a great number of dissatisfied farmers in the west. Even now, if the farmer got what he is asking for, he would not be getting his fair share of the national income.
80709-83J
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations in connection with the amendment and subamendment now before the house. May I point out first of all that the people in my constituency are engaged chiefly in agriculture, and their main source of revenue is from the sale of wheat.
Most farmers in the three prairie provinces have been concerned with the final payment made in the five-year pool. In northern Alberta we had drought conditions this year. Throughout the prairie provinces there was early frost and bad harvesting weather, with the result that much of the crop has not been threshed. Owing to these conditions the position occupied by the farmers has been aggravated. For that reason the farmer was concerned about what amount he would receive by way of final payment. Following the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that in addition to the $55 million in the hands of the wheat board a further contribution of $65 million would be made, totalling 8-3 cents per bushel, I have received a considerable number of wires from my constituency, especially from locals of the farmers' union of Alberta and from individual farmers, indicating a feeling that more should be paid by way of final payment.
My concern at the moment is that there has been an opinion voiced in this house by a number of hon. members who do not come from the three prairie provinces that this $65 million should not be given to the farmers in addition to the 3-8 cents per bushel now in the treasury of the wheat board. May I point out to those hon. members that the farmer's position in western Canada has been made more difficult because of the rising cost of machinery and the rising cost of production. May I point out also that the farmers of western Canada have subsidized the Canadian consumer of wheat in the form of cheap bread to the extent of some 160,000,000 bushels, amounting to $48 million. That should be borne in mind by those hon. members who are now opposed to this contribution of $65 million given by the Canadian government.
I have listened with considerable interest to the debate on this wheat situation and I admit that probably I am more acquainted with the Anglo-Canadian wheat contract and the five year pool than I was before. One thing that struck me is that hon. members of the opposition, especially Social Credit and C.C.F. members, have endeavoured to indicate that the agreement which was entered into originally with Great Britain was a mistake, that it should' not have been entered

Canadian Wheat Board Act into originally. In fact, one hon. member, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), referred to it as a colossal blunder.


An hon. Member:: He is not C.C.F.


An hon. Member:: He is not Social Credit.


John Decore: I said hon. members of the opposition. Of course, there was a lot of applause at that time from the Social Credit and C.C.F. ranks.


An hon. Member:: No, there was not.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker-


John Decore: I was not here in the house in 1946-


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that his remarks with regard to applause go into Hansard, and that would indicate that we were supporting certain contentions made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. We did not support those contentions and we did not applaud them. We did not say that the wheat agreement was a bad agreement. We did not say anything of the kind whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we supported the agreement and I object-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: -to the hon. member trying to get that impression into Hansard.


John Decore: The hon. member for Macleod objects to my statement that they are against the agreement now, but let me quote what was said the other night by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I quote from page 1222 of Hansard as follows:
The next thing I should like to say is that if the government's case in respect of what might happen two, three, four or five years from the time they sighed on the dotted line did not turn out as they expected it would, then they cannot escape the responsibility. That is all there is to it.
Going back to 1946, I notice that the hon. member for Macleod did not raise any objection with regard to the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement, but he now comes forward and by implication suggests that this agreement was bad. In other words, he is blowing hot and cold at the same time. As I say, I was not here in 1946 but I was interested in what took place and I checked Hansard. For instance, I notice that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue)-I wonder if he recognizes his words-is reported as having referred to the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement as follows:
This agreement I think is just one step along the path mankind must follow toward the goal of living, and letting live, agreeing together and trying to help one another, and for that reason I support it.
He supported the agreement in 1946, but his remarks of a few days ago would indicate that this was a bad agreement. This

agreement was supported by all opposition groups including, as was pointed out by the Winnipeg Free Press, the official opposition then under the leadership of Mr. Bracken.


James Arthur Ross: The Free Press may be correctly reported, but that is not the true story that is carried in the Free Press.


John Decore: As I say, I was not here, but there was a member representing Vegreville at that time. This is what was said in this editorial:
But it should not be forgotten that it-
That is the government.
-did so on the urgent demand of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. The other two pools and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture joined later on in welcoming and enthusiastically supporting this wheat agreement. So did all the political parties in parliament. The Conservatives, under Mr. Bracken-
The hon. member has just stated that that is not so; maybe it is not.

voted for the agreement and the C.C.F. under Mr. Cold well welcomed it as a straight C.C.F. policy-which, of course, it was.


James Arthur Ross: There was no vote on
the agreement, and that is recorded in Hansard.


John Decore: Here is the important part:
Wherever the greatest responsibility may lie, the one certainty is that no government for one moment would have considered requiring wheat farmers to sell their wheat under such an agreement without the firm and unqualified approval of the recognized farm organizations-the pools and the federation. The federal government, as every wheat producer knows, had their firm and unqualified approval.
I listened to the debate in connection with the matter and I was struck with the statement made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. I respect his views and I respect the hon. member, but I do say to him that when he criticizes the wheat board, when he does not agree with the wheat board method of marketing our Canadian wheat, he is not aware of the feeling of the farmers in western Canada. The farmers of western Canada have had enough of the so-called free enterprise method of marketing their wheat in the Winnipeg grain exchange. The farmers still want the Canadian wheat board to sell their wheat.
I should like to refer to a Canadian Press article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 3, 1951:	.
Stanley Jones, president of Winnipeg grain exchange, said recently that Canadian wheat would have been worth $680 million more in five years if it had been sold at the free world price-


Mr. Sinnoti:: He would have it all.


James Arthur Ross: Apart from what the Liberal party might have got.


John Decore: These figures are very interesting when you compare them with the figures submitted by the hon. member for Souris and other hon. members. The rest of the quotation is as follows:
-instead of at controlled prices under the Anglo-Canadian and international wheat agreements.
In this vital debate that is going on at the present time every effort is being made in my opinion to discredit the Canadian wheat board. I think the Winnipeg grain exchange has received a lot of free assistance right in this house. I think the farmers have had enough of the free marketing system. The farmer is not asking for any unreasonable price. He wants a fair price, and he also wants stability with respect to his wheat.
The subamendment before the house asks for consideration of the farmer receiving 25 cents a bushel for his wheat. As a westerner, I am in favour of the farmer receiving 25 cents a bushel or more if possible. The prosperity of western Canada means that other parts of Canada will also prosper. The only thing I am concerned with at this moment is where we are going to raise the money. I have not heard the C.C.F. group say how they propose that this additional money be paid. Is it going to be raised by way of extra taxes? We are expecting heavier taxation this year in order to meet our defence requirements. Is the C.C.F. group asking that more taxes be imposed on Canadians? I have heard that members of the C.C.F. party are opposed to further taxation.
I should also like to say that I was particularly disappointed with the Social Credit group. I was especially disappointed when I listened to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Every so often the hon. member for Lethbridge gets up on the floor of the house and expounds on the theories and principles of Social Credit. He often refers to a book dealing with the principles of Social Credit. I think he is now about half way through it but there is still half of it left that we will have to listen to. I was hoping that possibly in the other half of the book he would have found something to indicate to us just how we can raise the money through Social Credit principles in order to be able to make a further substantial payment.
What are hon. members trying to do in the utterances they have made in the house with respect to this matter? What are they trying to achieve? There has been a suggestion that some people are trying to make political capital. However, I think there is at least one honest member who has made his stand clear, who came out in the open and pointed out just what he had in mind. Incidentally
Royal Commission on Transportation he comes from Alberta. I refer to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). As I say, I admire him for coming out in the open and saying what he had in mind. I think others should have done the same thing. At page 1155 of Hansard he said:
I believe that when the next election rolls around the other provinces will follow Alberta's example and clean house with the Liberals.
I do not know whether he wants to change the words "with the Liberals". This is unrevised Hansard. I suppose what he had in mind was that he wanted to point out that the Social Credit party came into power with a bang in the province of Alberta in 1935.


Mr. Wylie:: They are still in with a bang.


John Decore: I think he could have gone
a step further and pointed out the reason why they came in with a bang in the province-of Alberta in 1935. There was one very important reason. In 1935, during the time of the depression-


William Duncan McKay Wylie: What has this got to do withwheat?


John Decore: I will point out to you what
it has to do with wheat. The founder of the Social Credit party, Mr. Aberhart, promised! $25 a month to every citizen of Alberta. They were not expected to pay the money back or to work for it. That was the promise he made and that is one of the reasons why the hon. member who has been making interruptions is in this house today, because of the promises that were made in 1935.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You are absolutely silly and
you know it.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) to allow me to interrupt him. He may continue at eight o'clock. I would ask the house to revert to motions to enable me to lay on the table the report of the royal commission on transportation. This report has been printed in English and is available for distribution. The translation is well advanced and the printing of the French copy will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.
This document completes the work of the royal commission which for over two years has conducted an extensive investigation into Canada's transportation problems and policy. It is a most comprehensive survey of the subject and should be of considerable interest.
1290	HOUSE OF
Wheat Agreement-Tabling of Documents to all members and to all Canadians who are directly or indirectly affected by the availability and the cost of transportation.
I wish to take this opportunity to express the thanks of the government to the members of the royal commission on transportation, Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, Dr. H. F. Angus and Dr. H. A. Innis, and to its secretarial and technical personnel. We are particularly indebted to the Hon. Mr. Turgeon who was given leave from his post as Canadian high commissioner in Ireland, now ambassador, to head the royal commission, and who brought to this difficult and laborious task the capacity, wisdom, and judgment acquired during his long judicial and diplomatic career. The government will no doubt have some legislation to recommend based on the recommendations of the report.


Mr. Green:: This session?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: At this present session.
Hon. members will therefore be provided with an opportunity at that time for discussion of the report in addition of course to the usual opportunity provided when the estimates of the Department of Transport are before the house for consideration.



REPORTS AND PAPERS


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, since we have reverted to motions, I wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) could table the documents concerning which he has now received permission to table from the British government. If that could be done now or at eight o'clock it would be most helpful in view of their importance to the debate on the wheat board bill.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I was told that an
answer had been received. I have not seen it. I will try to see it during the recess, and I will try to comply with the suggestion of the hon. member. The government is just as anxious as the hon. member to have all pertinent facts before the public for the public's appraisal.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. WHEAT

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask IMr. St. Laurent.]

the leave of the house to revert to motions for a moment, in order to table certain documents concerning the wheat agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister
leave of the house to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The United Kingdom
government has taken the position that it has no objection to the publication of the minute of the meeting with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on May 22, 1950, and a message from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Chancellor of the Exchequer dated May 30, 1950, but that it would strongly deprecate any departure from the general practice of not publishing documents connected with negotiations between governments, and only publishing agreed conclusions. I shall, therefore, table the minute of the meeting of May 22, 1950, and a copy of the communication dated May 30, 1950, sent through the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom here in Ottawa to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Since that is all we have obtained the consent of the United Kingdom government to lay on the table, on Monday when the motion for the production of papers standing in the name of the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is called, I shall ask him if he will consent to dropping it.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe they are the two documents that are really essential.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
John Decore: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I endeavoured to point out that when the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement was being negotiated and discussed on the floor of this house in 1946, it would definitely appear that there were at least two political groups in this house who were in favour of the agreement, namely the Social Credit group and the C.C.F. From the debate that has taken place so far in this house, the implication has been made that the agreement was a bad agreement and probably should not have been entered into. If this house is to accept the contention that the agreement was bad to start with, then I feel that the members of His Majesty's-


Major James William Coldwell: I did not quite hear the hon. member. Who says the agreement is a bad agreement?


John Decore: By implication, I was referring to the two political groups-


Major James William Coldwell: I deny that absolutely, and the record will confirm my stand.


Mr. Fair:: On behalf of the Social Credit party I made a statement, and before this debate ends it will be clear to everybody that that is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Decore: I would suggest that the hon. member read his own speech, and read the speeches delivered by some of the other members, and then he will agree that by implication the agreement was referred to as bad to start with. I do say that if we are to accept their version of the agreement, they must also accept the responsibility. You cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.


Mr. Blackmore:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is misrepresenting the position of this group entirely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe some member from the hon. gentleman's group will no doubt have an opportunity of presenting their case.


John Decore: If I am to understand that hon. members now say the agreement was a good arrangement, then I do not think there is any room for argument. I also express the view that I should like to see the farmers in western Canada get 25 cents a bushel or more. In fact, I am going to state right now that I am going to vote in favour of the subamendment in the hope that members of the Social Credit group will get into consultation with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and work out some financial arrangement whereby this would be possible. It would certainly be appreciated by the farmers in western Canada, and) by the whole of Canada so far as that is concerned if we can get more money without raising taxes.


John Horne Blackmore: We can surely do that.


John Decore: I also pointed out that in listening to this debate I found1 that at least one hon. member was honest, and that was the member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), when he pointed out that there will be a housecleaning of Liberals in the province of Alberta-	'


Mr. Johnston:: I can clear that up for the hon. member. There will not be any Liberals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
15, 1951
Canadian Wheat Board Act


John Decore: I should like to point out further, Mr. Speaker, that shortly after six o'clock I was told that I was looking for trouble. I was warned by one of the members of the Social Credit group. I had a similar warning before. I take that as notice to expect a barrage of personal abuse to be heaped upon me on the floor of this house. I believe that by this time some hon. member has been delegated to do this job, and I would not be surprised if it were the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw). After all, one must not criticize the Social Credit party in this house or in the province of Alberta.
I should like to make a reference to the criticism that has been levelled against some members of the government especially by the member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) blaming this whole set-up on the socialist government in Great Britain. In fact, the leader of the C.C.F. party, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), endeavoured the other night to attribute to me a statement which I never made. I, of course, accept his explanation that he was not properly informed. The statement I made was to the effect that, taking into account what we did for Great Britain in supplying her with cheap wheat, the socialist government in Great Britain failed to carry out its moral obligations. Perhaps the term "moral obligation" is not a very happy term. May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that taking into consideration what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said on the floor of this house a few nights ago, there is nothing inconsistent with what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told us this afternoon and what he told this house on March 8, 1951, as reported in Hansard at page 1023:
The government has taken the position that while there was no further obligation on the United Kingdom in a legal sense, the United Kingdom authorities should realize that the wheat growers of Canada and most of the community of the prairie provinces believed there was a continuing obligation under the "have regard to" clause which had not been discharged.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that Canada is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, the finest and greatest organization the world- has ever seen. Everything should be done to see that the relationship between the members of the commonwealth, and especially between Canada and the United Kingdom, is always a happy one. I also agree with what has been stated by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) the other night, when he said that those people who know something about the history of the British people know that they have a reputation for discharging their obligations and that their word is their bond. But I say in all sincerity that I am sure that if the

Canadian Wheat Board Act British people as a whole were aware of all the facts of the situation in connection with this contract, and if they knew that the prairie farmers feel that there is a continuing obligation under the "have regard to" clause, probably we would not have in connection with this matter the difficulty that we have today.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, obviously there exists on the part of a good many hon. members of this house a desire to conclude this debate. As far as I am personally concerned, the house could have taken the vote at a quarter to six tonight. However, I cannot permit the record to remain cluttered up as it is. Therefore I must deal with several things that have been said by the previous speaker. Let me assure him that he was entirely wrong when he suggested that I or someone had been delegated to attack, I think he said, him personally. Let me assure my hon. friend that he had no more than opened his mouth before I decided I would answer him without consultation with any hon. member of this group at all. Actually, I do not mind direct accusations, even though false, as much as I dislike insinuations and inferences. As I said a moment ago, the hon. member stated that someone, he was told, would attack him personally. That has never been done yet by anyone in this group. He flatters himself when he says so. We deal with those things which men say as indicating the things for which they stand.
Just before proceeding, I should like to leave one question with him. He asked how the Canadian people were going to bear the burden of the additional costs which might be involved if the Canadian farmers were to be paid those sums to which they were justly entitled. I would ask him to ponder upon this question. If 14 million Canadian people cannot bear the burden, how does he expect 230,000 western Canadian farmers to bear the burden?


John Decore: Why not apply the principles of social credit?


Robert Fair: Why not apply the principles of communism while you are at it?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has now obviously come to the conclusion that the orthodox methods of finance probably cannot meet the problem and is wanting to know how social credit would do it effectively and successfully. We have indicated that to him on many occasions. It is not our fault if he cannot understand it.
Before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, it was insinuated that the Social Credit members

of this house had considered the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement to be a bad agreement. I should like to know where there exists any evidence whatsoever to substantiate such a fantastic declaration as that. It was also insinuated before six o'clock that we had, if not by direct statement at least by implication, opposed the marketing of wheat through the Canadian wheat board. There does not exist any evidence anywhere to substantiate such an assertion as that. Of course I realize that if persons are determined to do it, they can probably take statements and misconstrue such statements in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion which would satisfy the individual but certainly could not in any way reflect the facts of the situation.
One can examine the evidence as far back as 1946, if he likes, to find the truth of our position. I sometimes regret that some hon. members of parliament are so extremely busy that they have not time to scan the records and secure the evidence. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it makes no difference how deep one may go into any political garbage pail; one could not find evidence to back up those two assertions, that we opposed either the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement or the marketing of wheat through the Canadian wheat board.
As I say, everyone who will examine the records back in 1946 and 1947 will find declarations such as the one to which I am going to refer. This has been placed upon the record before, but obviously it must be placed upon the record again. In 1946 the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), referring to the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement, stated in part as follows, as reported at page 4800 of Hansard of that year:
On behalf of this group I wish to say that we are glad to know that we are to have stabilized prices for the next four crop years and also that an agreement has been made with Britain. I am not going to say whether we are well satisfied with the prices received. We feel that the British government are satisfied that they got a very good deal at the expense of Canada.
Then he refers to some press clippings from Britain to bear out that fact, and goes on to say:
I am glad the people of Britain appreciate that they are getting a good deal from Canada. I might say we have no objection whatever to Canada's supplying the best food in the world to Britain and to other countries, but we object to the farmers bearing the brunt of the expense. On many occasions we have made it clear that .the farmers of Canada have not received the price for their products to which they are justly entitled. I still estimate that the same condition continues under the present agreement. Of course we are very well satisfied to have a stabilized price for some time to come, because we all remember what happened

after the first great war and we do not want conditions of that kind to arise again; but in view of the losses the farmers accepted from 1939 up to 1942 I feel we are entitled to a much better deal as far as our wheat is concerned. I am not going to deal in particular with the sale to the British government. The cost of that will, of course, be taken care of by the government here, and we in turn will have to bear our share of the loss through taxation.
You will notice that on that occasion the hon. member for Battle River said what we have said repeatedly, namely that if any losses should accrue to the Canadian wheat farmers under the British agreement, then those wheat farmers should not be called upon to meet the burden of those losses by themselves. During those years we took the position that we fully recognized Britain's contribution to the democratic effort. We were anxious that Britain should have cheap wheat. We were anxious that Canadian wheat should be made available to the British people at even less than prevailing world prices. But on that occasion we emphasized that the people of every part of Canada, who all through those years kept talking about our gift to Britain, should unite in compensating the wheat farmers for any loss that might be sustained. During those years the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) spoke on a number of occasions when these matters were up for discussion. On February 27, 1947, he said;
In the early part of this agreement the farmer is making a considerable sacrifice. He is losing anywhere from 50 cents to 75 cents a bushel. If in the next two or three years there is a wheat shortage, if crops are poor, the price of wheat will be maintained at probably a high level and will remain there. Then the guarantee becomes absolutely useless. If that should be the situation over the next two or three years the farmers of this country, as a result of this agreement, are going to lose several hundred million dollars. I believe that the wheat agreement with Britain was fully justified, but it does entail in its early stages a considerable sacrifice on the part of our farmers. We feel that the sacrifice should be borne by the people of Canada as a whole.
We repeated that position time and again; and I hope that when it is referred to in this house, either during this debate or later on, hon. members will at least make an effort to stay close to the facts as they relate to our position. On March 2, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his announcement with respect to the $65 million and the final payment of 8-3 cents per bushel, the people of this country, particularly the farmers and farm organizations, were stunned. As a matter of fact a good many members of this house scattered through all four parties here were also stunned. I have no doubt about that whatever. I will recall the applause when the statement was commenced, but I did not hear very much enthusiastic applause at the conclusion of the
Canadian Wheat Board Act statement. As a matter of fact I thought the Prime Minister was extremely wise in offering a word of caution when the applause commenced very shortly after he started his statement.
There is a great deal of consternation among people across western Canada. We have had that feeling reflected through individual members of this house, some speaking in this chamber and others in the corridors. I would vouchsafe that if we were not assembled here; if it were not a matter of party; if it were not a matter of a government and an opposition and we were asked to express our views individually, they might be considerably different than if expressed under circumstances as they exist.


An hon- Member:: Speak for yourself.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would say to my hon. friend that as I walk the corridors I hear things, and I am basing what I say at least in part upon the comments I hear in the corridors of this institution.


Mr.   Coie@Malapedia-Malane: Do you also read your horoscope in the Ottawa Journal?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not; but I am going to read the hon. member's, to see if I can learn something about my hon. friend, who has caused me a great deal of wonder on more than one occasion. We have had public statements from responsible leaders of farm organizations, men who know the facts. We have had statements from the premiers of the three prairie provinces. Certainly they are not all of the same political persuasion; in fact no two of them belong to the same party, and to me that means something. Those men know the facts as they exist now and as they have existed down through the years. We have had editorials in the western newspapers, not all favourable to a further payment, I grant you, but reflecting a weighty body of editorial opinion that the western farmers are entitled to a far better deal than they have been offered up to the present time. I daresay every member of this house who comes from western Canada has received letters, telegrams and even petitions. You know what they say as well as I do. In addition we have had the action of at least one provincial legislative assembly, that of Alberta. Perhaps others have taken action by this time; I do not know. For a moment I should like to refer to what was done in Alberta. Let us not forget that there are 56 members of the Alberta house, with one vacancy, making a total of 57. This matter

Canadian Wheat Board Act came up in the provincial assembly, and the following motion was moved by one of the members:
Whereas the Canadian government sold wheat for domestic market at a very low price during a portion of the five-year pool, and
Whereas the British wheat agreement of 1945-49 between the government of Canada and Great Britain supplied wheat to the British people at prices below those prevailing on the general world market, and
Whereas the cost of supplying Canadian wheat to the British people and the domestic market has thus far been borne entirely by the western wheat producing farmer rather than by the people of Canada as a whole,
Therefore be it resolved that this legislative assembly request the government of Canada to issue a further substantial payment to western wheat producers on all wheat delivered in' the crop years 1945 to 1949 inclusive in order to bring the total price to be received by the fanners more in line with the existing world wheat prices during the 1945-1949 period.
There are two Liberals in the Alberta house, due to the rather peculiar or different system of voting in Edmonton and Calgary, each of which returned one Liberal member. There are two C.C.F. members, and a couple of independents. During the debate on this resolution the Liberal leader in Alberta and Mr. MacDonald, the other Liberal member, tried to do a most peculiar thing. They tried to support the present position of the federal government and satisfy the farmers of Alberta at one and the same time. The press men report, at least, that they were convinced the two Liberal members were opposed to the resolution. As a matter of fact I saw an interesting report in the Calgary Albertan, a morning paper published in Calgary, referring to what took place the day of the vote. After making reference to oil, the report goes on to say:
Oil or no oil, Alberta legislators still spend a lot of time worrying about what the farmer is worrying about, and a good opportunity to worry out loud was provided in the resolution moved by Peter Chaba of Redwater, which asked for a federal payment on 1945-49 wheat deliveries in addition to the recent one of eight and one-third cents a bushel.
The only effective way to worry about the farmer, politically speaking, is out loud, because there is no point in it unless the farmer knows you are doing it. He can't tell by watching the legislator's facial expression from the gallery, because his worried look may be due only to the fact that his wife is threatening to leave him.
Anyway, the subject of wheat was shovelled back and forth for practically all of the afternoon and in some cases ground into very fine flour.
When all the chaff and dust had blown away, however, they were all in their seats, and what brought them back was a demand from the Social Credit benches for a recorded vote.
The result was surprising. Every M.LA. was on his feet for the ayes, and every one in his seat for the nays.
The surprise came to the press gallery because they could have sworn they had heard some nay

voices in the earlier voice vote, and they could have sworn that the tenor of both Liberal speeches was against the resolution.


John Decore: Which paper is the hon. member quoting from?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Why don't you listen?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I quoted from the Calgary
Albertan. The article is under the dateline of March 8, and is "special to the Albertan".
When anyone talks about playing politics with an issue, I would refer them to that report. All members who were present voted for a resolution which asked for a payment substantially larger than 8-3 cents announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on March 2. I suggest that Alberta Liberals in the House of Commons upon this occasion should take their direction or lead from Mr. Prowse. I am the first to congratulate him when he is right-and of course I do not have to do it often. However I say he was right in the way he voted; and it would certainly be the better part of wisdom for the Liberals from Alberta in this house to follow Mr. Prowse's lead.
Figures placed on record by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) indicate that between 1946 and 1950 under the Canadian-United Kingdom wheat agreement there were losses to the tune of $431,676,844. Then, in subsidizing the Canadian consumer there was another loss of $136,920,921. In the past we have taken, and we take again today, the firm position that the Canadian people as a whole are morally obligated to make good the losses of more than $400 million sustained by the wheat farmers of western Canada, even after this 8-3 cents has been paid.
There has been divided opinion; I appreciate that. There are some who say that Great Britain should have done more under the "have regard to" clause. There are those who say that she has met all the conditions under the contract and is under no legal or other obligation to make any further payment. Some say the Canadian government should make the additional payment, and some say it should not.
The wheat farmers, who were anxious to see Great Britain get cheap bread, who were actually prepared to share the loss with the Canadian people-those farmers who were definitely led to believe that they were to be compensated for losses feel that unless those losses have been met there has been a double cross. Whether those farmers were led to believe, rightly or wrongly, that they should expect a further payment is beside the point. They were definitely given to understand that was the situation that would prevail. There is no question in the minds of the

farmers in my section of Canada as to whether the government should or should not make a further substantial payment. The twenty-five cents called for in the subamendment, even when added to the eight point three cents, is definitely lower than the total loss sustained. So in supporting the amendment which asks for twenty-five cents I feel I am asking for less than that to which the farmers are entitled. However, I am prepared to support the twenty-five cent provision, because I believe it would go a long way toward providing compensation for the loss they suffered.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the question may I again remind the house that when the amendment to the amendment was proposed I questioned its regularity. At the same time I probably should have brought to the attention of the house the fact that in my opinion the amendment itself is also irregular on several grounds, two of which I will mention. The first is that the main amendment purports to attach conditions to the second reading of the bill. This is irregular. The main amendment also is irrelevant to the principle of the amending bill.
However, when the discussion started on the second reading of the bill I called the attention of the house to the fact that I doubted whether discussion of the United Kingdom agreement specifically was in order, but it was the unanimous opinion of the house that I should allow the debate to proceed. For that reason I have allowed both the amendment and the subamendment to stand.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I certainly would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Why?


James Arthur Ross: Because the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) refused to appoint a royal commission to report on the proper amount of loss to the farmers.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before going on with what I propose to discuss tonight, may I assert once more, so that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) will have one more chance to find out what Social Crediters have stood for, that I and all Social Crediters supported the agreement in 1946, and we have done so ever since. We also have supported the wheat board. We believe that the agreement was a good one. We have always believed that it was a good one. We now believe that the agreement was a good one, and that the principle underlying it was also good.
What I intend to say from here on consists of my own views in large measure and not necessarily the views of every member, or even the majority of members, of the Social Credit party.
In order to start us out on the line of thought to which I wish to direct attention, may I read once more the reckless statement of the hon. member for Vegreville as it was recorded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) at page 1097 of Hansard. It is as follows:
John Decore (Liberal-Vegreville) charged that the British government "has failed to carry out its moral obligations" to western Canada under the "have regard to" clause of the contract . . .
Had the British government assumed its obligation the farmer would have received substantially more and to which he is entitled.
May I give some attention for a few minutes to the question of the obligation of Great Britain under the contract. According to the letter of the agreement Great Britain could not be held responsible for any additional payment under the "have regard to" clause. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), as well as a good many other members, dealt with that, so I think there is no need for further discussion on it.
Now we come to the question of moral responsibility. Great Britain, according to the spirit and intent of the agreement, could not fairly and justly be held morally obligated to make any additional payment beyond the $1.55 per bushel for the first two years and $2 for the second two years of the agreement.


The Canadian government positively declared itself in favour of selling wheat to former allies at less than prevailing world prices. This is an important thing for all members to get fixed in their minds. Canada announced it as a settled policy that she was ready to sell wheat at a lower rate, not more than $1.55 per bushel, to Britain and her allies and overseas countries.
Let us see what evidence we have in connection with it. On September 19, 1945, the Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, then minister of trade and commerce, said at page 290 of Hansard:
There is a moral obligation not to take advantage of our recent allies in their time of compelling need.
On the same page the same minister said:
Higher wheat prices would encourage the importing countries in a hurried return to wheat production and pre-war wheat policies very directly to the detriment of the wheat exporting countries, particularly Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I speak to all the members of the Liberal party who are so ready to say that Britain has not discharged her moral responsibilities? There are two definite principles laid down in 1945, apparently before there was ever any thought of a United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. Surely no one will hold Britain accountable for those two principles!
As further evidence that the Canadian government had resolved in this direction, let me point out that the Canadian government had officially enunciated the principles laid down by the minister of trade and commerce in those two quotations I have given, by order in council P. C. 6122 passed on September 19, 1945, dealing with the proposed wheat policy for the future. I shall read the order in council. It is as follows:
Order in council directing the Canadian wheat board not to sell wheat for export to overseas destinations at a price in excess of $1.55 per bushel.



P.C. 6122

[Stage Direction]
At the Government House at Ottawa Wednesday, the 19th day of September, 1945 Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
Whereas the Minister of Trade and Commerce reports that because of the effects of a crop failure in Australia and French North Africa, of transportation difficulties in various supplying countries, and of other adverse developments upon the volume of exportable wheat and because of the urgent requirements of recently liberated areas of Europe and Asia, world demand for wheat is presently exceeding available supplies;
That under these conditions Canada, as the principal wheat exporting country, is in a position to demand very much higher prices for wheat from importing countries which must obtain food from abroad regardless of price in order to avoid want

and starvation and to many of which Canada has been or will be extending loans for rehabilitation and reconstruction purposes;
That it would be contrary to the interests of Canada and of Canadian wheat growers to take advantage of the necessity of former allies by charging higher prices for wheat, thereby encouraging an uneconomic expansion of wheat acreage in both importing and exporting countries, including Canada;
That it is in the interests of Canada and Canadian wheat growers to continue to offer wheat for sale at prices not in excess of those prevailing at the end of hostilities towards the end of maintaining a balanced agricultural program at home, securing and holding markets for Canadian wheat throughout the world and assisting in the early stabilization of economic and political life in war-torn countries;
That since May 15, 1945, the Canadian wheat board has been selling wheat to countries not in receipt of mutual aid on the basis of $1.55 per bushel for No. 1 Manitoba Northern, in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver;
That as a further means of stabilizing wheat prices during the post-war period it is the intention that steps shall be taken to ensure that producers will not at any time up to July 31, 1950, receive less than $1 per bushel for No. 1 Manitoba Northern wheat, basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, on the authorized deliveries for each crop year;
And whereas by reason of the state of war now existing, it is deemed necessary for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada that the following regulation be made:
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and under and by virtue of the War Measures Act, is pleased to make and doth hereby make the following regulation,-
Regulation
The Canadian wheat board shall not sell wheat for export to overseas destinations at a price in excess of $1.55 per bushel for No. 1 Manitoba Northern, basis in store, Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, and in the case of each other grade of wheat at prices in excess of such prices as in the opinion of the said board brings each of such grades into proper price relationship with No. 1 Manitoba Northern.
A. D. P. Heeney,
Clerk of the Privy Council I suppose, Mr. Speaker, everyone who is following this controversy at all must realize that the British were in no conceivable way responsible for that decision of the Canadian government to sell wheat at a price not in excess of $1.55 per bushel. When w begin to consider the moral obligation of Great Britain, this is an extremely important consideration.
We must have sold wheat to several nonBritish countries at $1.55 per bushel. Evidence of this is to be found in the 1947 Hansard at page 787. The then minister of trade and commerce had this to say:
Another question asked by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. McCuaig) was, did the government sell Canadian wheat to forty-two countries outside the United Kingdom at $1.55 a bushel, or around 45 cents a bushel under world prices? The answer is that on September 19, 1945, the government instructed the Canadian wheat board to sell wheat for export at prices not exceeding $1.55
Canadian Wheat Board Act a bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. This instruction was of a temporary nature and was lifted on July 31, 1946. It covered a critical overseas position in the period following liberation.
Further down he has this to say:
This temporary policy was accompanied by a commitment on the part of the government "to ensure that producers will not, at any time up to July 31, 1950, receive less than $1 per bushel" for No. 1 Northern wheat, basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. As the house now well knows, we have been able to do very much better than the basis outlined on September 19, 1945.
The idea seems to be held by a good many people that Britain somehow or other must have come on bended knees and pleaded with Canada to give her special consideration under which she would be able to obtain wheat for $1.55 per bushel. These quotations which I have given clearly prove that any such assumption concerning Britain is fallacious. That matter too has an important bearing on the question of the moral responsibility of Britain. Certainly, Britain had nothing to do with forming the wheat policy which was laid down, and which was being implemented by Canada. This order in council continues in force, as the quotation indicates, until July 31, 1946.
The wheat agreement now under discussion was signed on July 24, 1946, while that order in council was yet in force. Consequently, it can be said that the wheat agreement now under discussion was entered into by virtue of the order in council of September 19, 1945. The agreement was signed by James A. MacKinnon for Canada and P. A. Clutterbuck for Britain; and the treaty was in force immediately.
Before we go on with the next aspect of this question may I say this: Can anyone up to this stage find the slightest hint of any moral responsibility on Britain? Emphatically no!
Of this treaty the now much-disputed "have regard to" clause was article 2 (b) which, for the sake of the record, I propose to read once more. Article 2 (b) of the agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom for the purchase of Canadian wheat reads as follows:
(b) The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government not later than the 31st December, 1947, and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December, 1948. In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Those who argue that Britain has some moral responsibility usually point to this clause to begin their discussion. Any blame on Britain, if there be any blame, must have grown out of the last sentence of article 2 (b). Let us look at it again. I read the last sentence once more:
In determining the prices for these two crop years,
1948-	49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
"These two years" were 1948-49 and 194950. So it states. When written into the agreement, what was the significance of this so-called "have regard to" clause? I can remember quite well, Mr. Speaker, going throughout my constituency during the time when farmers were selling their wheat at $1.55 and having farmers quite anxiously ask me if I thought there was any chance that the price of wheat would go up during the next two years or if I did not fear that possibly the price of wheat would go down. I pointed to the "have regard to" clause and
I	said that the British people had always kept their word; that I believed that the "have regard to" clause was written into the agreement with the express purpose of providing protection against a fall in price of their product; that I believed that if there was any justification whatsoever, the British would negotiate the price upward from $1.55 so that we might expect such a price, we will say, as $1.75 or $1.80 next year. To me at the time this clause was a sort of guarantee that the price for wheat in 1948-49 and in
1949-	50 would be more than $1.55 per bushel if the prices paid for Canadian wheat by nations other than Britain were found to be sufficiently higher than $1.55 per bushel to justify an increase over $1.55 per bushel for Canadian wheat. So it worked out. The price of Canadian wheat to countries other than Britain in 1946-47 and 1947-48-in other words, the price of what was then called class II wheat-proved to be considerably higher than the $1.55 per bushel that Britain had agreed to pay and did pay.
Very well then. Recognizing this fact, Britain at the appropriate time "had regard to" that fact and agreed to pay $2 a bushel for her wheat in 1948-49. True to her agreement she did pay $2 per bushel in 1948-49. If that was not having respect for the "have regard to" clause, then I will challenge anybody in the house or in the country to prove that it was not.
Again at the appropriate time for making agreement to pay for 1949-50 wheat, once more Britain "had regard to" prices of class
II	wheat in 1946-49. She also had regard

to the probable price of class II wheat in the 1949-50 year. Having such regard, she agreed to pay $2 a bushel for the year 194950. Then, true to her agreement once more, she paid that price and took the full amount of wheat she had agreed to pay for and receive, notwithstanding the fact that the international wheat agreement arrived at meanwhile had fixed the price of class II wheat at $1.80. Once more you have an example of the application of the "have regard to" clause.
I have not heard anyone refer to that clause to give Britain any credit at all-a most astonishing thing. How can anyone show that Britain's behaviour in respect of her obligations up to that time had been less than fully moral? She did what she said she would do. She said in the agreement that she would have regard to the prices which had prevailed during the 1946-47 period, during the first two years, when she came to negotiate the prices for the next two years. She negotiated the prices for the next two years forty-five cents above what they were the first two years, thereby showing that she had regard. I believe that the people who are so anxious to attach moral turpitude-I do not know whether you would call it that; I suppose that is a little bit too strong an expression-or moral culpability to Britain by reason of the "have regard to" clause had better reconsider the whole matter in the light of what I have just said.
We now come to consider two pronouncements of responsible British statesmen. As I go around in the corridors and among the members I hear much reference to these two statements. The first of these was a statement by Right Hon. John Strachey. This gentleman, the British food minister, speaking before the Canadian Club at Winnipeg on February 26, 1947, quoted the latter part of clause 2 (b), the so-called "have regard to" clause, and then said:
Now these words mean neither more nor less than they say. They mean that the fact that we have bought our wheat from you this year below world prices-and that we may do so again next year-will be one of the factors in negotiating the actual prices to be paid in the third and fourth years. I and my government, and I am quite sure that this applies also to the Canadian government, would resist any attempt to add to or to subtract from this clear and definite statement as written into paragraph two subsection (b) of the wheat agreement.
Let us examine these words to see whether we can get from them the moral turpitude which some people feel inclined to impute to Britain. The words that have given rise to contention are those in the first two sentences; and it is not easy to see how words could be simpler or clearer in their meaning. They set forth exactly what the

British had agreed to do in clause 2 (b) of the agreement. They set forth precisely the course of procedure the British representatives adopted, together with the Canadian representatives, in determining that the price of $2 per bushel should be paid in each of the last two years, an increase of 45 cents a bushel over the first two years. How can anyone attach any blame to Britain on account of that speech or that remark? And I ask, how could any other interpretation have been justifiably placed upon those words than the interpretation I have given?
The second statement is that of Sir Stafford Cripps, chancellor of the British exchequer. On February 23, 1947, in an interview given to the Canadian Press in London, that statesman said:
As regards wheat we shall continue to depend on Canada for the greater part of our supplies. The four-year contract negotiated in 1946 will expire in 1950 and we have recently agreed upon a price of $2 a bushel for the 1949-50 season. We think there is every possibility of the world price falling below the $2 level before the end of the contract either because of the general improvement in the supply position or as a condition of any international wheat agreement which may be concluded in the near future. If this should be the case, the Canadian farmer will enjoy a favoured position by virtue of the fixed price on which we have agreed. This might prove to be a fair compensation for the earlier years when he was selling us wheat at below the world price; it depends, of course, upon how far prices actually fall. But in any case we have agreed to discuss this matter further with the Canadian government some time toward the end of 1950.
What do we gather from this pronouncement? This remark also has given rise to much contention. Let us consider the three most contentious sentences in the statement. The first, I submit, is this:
If this should be the case, the Canadian farmer will enjoy a favoured position by virtue of the fixed price on which we have agreed.
The British indicate no desire, because of the fixed world price, to ask any reduction from the $2 they agreed to pay for the third and fourth years of the contract. The British agreed to pay $2, and they paid it. There was no breach of honour there. I defy anyone, I do not care who he is, to show any breach of moral obligation in respect of that sentence.
Now let us take the second sentence which has given rise to discussion:
This might prove to be a fair compensation for the earlier years when he was selling us wheat at below the world price; it depends, of course, upon how far prices actually fall.
"Fair compensation" is the expression upon which one must concentrate attention. When Canada laid down her policy under P.C. 6122 in September, 1945, she had no thought of "compensation" from Britain. This is an
Canadian Wheat Board Act exceedingly important matter. When Canada negotiated the trade agreement she had no thought whatever of any compensation from Britain. Neither did the hon. members of this house; neither did the people throughout the country at that time. So when Sir Stafford Cripps spoke of a fair compensation I say he was exceedingly generous. The importance which has been attached to that expression by critics obviously is altogether unwarranted.
Look again at the order in council I have already read. What is more, look once again at the words of Mr. MacKinnon, which I have quoted, as evidence of the truth of my statement when I declared that Canada had no thought whatsoever of any compensation. Canada sold grain to probably forty or forty-five different nations other than Britain at $1.55 a bushel. We have not heard anyone suggest that any one of those be asked to make some compensation for the cheap grain they enjoyed. Why should we fix on Britain?
The farmer was entitled to substantial compensation-at least 25 cents per bushel. But the British had no responsibility in the matter, legally or morally.
Then the third sentence in the statement which has caused discussion is:
But in any case we have agreed to discuss this matter further with the Canadian government some time toward the middle of 1950.
The British did discuss this matter further, which was all they promised to do. In fact the British evidently asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to discuss the matter. As evidence of that I quote an interjection by the minister during the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) at page 1115 of Hansard for March 9: After the arrangements were made for the sale of the 1950 wheat crop, I was asked to discuss the settlement of the four-year wheat agreement. I said I had no authority to discuss it, and certainly no authority to settle it. If they wanted to tell me their views I would report them to my government. They told me their views, and I gave the views of the Canadian government as I understood them. I brought back a message to the Canadian government.
Not only did the British discuss the matter; they sought an opportunity to discuss it, and thereby certainly discharged every vestige of responsibility, legally, morally or otherwise, which might have been suggested by the statement of Sir Stafford Cripps. So in what conceivable respect can it be shown that Britain in any degree failed to carry out her moral obligation arising from the words of Sir Stafford Cripps?
There will be an opportunity for those hon. members who have been inclined to talk adversely about Britain's moral obligation, to defend their position when we get into
1300	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Wheat Board Act
committee. I hereby challenge any hon. member of this house to disprove anything I have said here tonight. The field is wide open to these bright, smart, new young members who have been so reckless in rushing into print concerning the moral obligation of Britain. They will be free to establish their case; and if they do not do so they will stand condemned before the house and the people. When a man is a member of this House of Commons and has the initials M.P. attached to his name, the people of the country have a right to expect him to know something of what he is talking about. A good many of these men have spoken a great deal with very little knowledge and understanding.
As I have previously argued, the wheat producers ought to receive compensation to the extent of at least 25 cents per bushel. The people of Canada through the dominion government are in duty bound to pay that 25 cents. Britain, let me repeat, has not the least scintilla of a moral obligation in any shape or form in connection with reimbursing Canadian farmers for the losses they have sustained by reason of the British-Canadian wheat agreement.
Mr. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the matter under discussion at the present time embraces certain considerations which go far beyond the question of wheat policy alone, and even far beyond the more complicated question of what if anything should be paid the farmers of the prairies in return for any losses they may have suffered in the marketing of their wheat during the past five years. It is on that basis that I take part in this debate. Some of the issues were discussed this afternoon. The one to which I wish to refer first is the matter of the difference in the statements that have been made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Those differences were referred to in the statement this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). But the Prime Minister did not, and probably very wisely did not, try to explain the unexplainable or to reconcile the irreconcilable. He was invited by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to try to reconcile the two conflicting positions of his senior cabinet ministers or, if that were impossible, to state what was in fact the correct interpretation of their statements. But the Prime Minister did not reconcile the conflicting statements.
The fact remains that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has stated that payments to the prairie farmers are due because the British have failed to live up to their obligations under the contract, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. 
Howe) has stated that the British government has fully discharged its obligations under that contract. The Prime Minister was not able and did not try to deal with those two irreconcilable statements. What the Prime Minister did say was that the government decided to give $65 million to the farmers of the prairies because of the expectations of certain producer groups.
Here again the Prime Minister is very different in his approach to the matter from the approach of the Minister of Agriculture. The statements of the Minister of Agriculture are different from the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. So we now have three different statements of position, one by the Prime Minister, who bases his justification of the contribution upon expectations, one by the Minister of Agriculture, who bases his justification upon the alleged failure of the British to discharge their obligations, and the third from the Minister of Trade and Commerce who says simply that the government decided to pay $65 million, and makes no attempt to explain it.


Mr. Gibson:: Let us bury the dead horse.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The horse is very much alive, and has been revived by the statement of the Prime Minister and by the papers which have been tabled in the house tonight.
Hon. members must not lose sight of the fact that an effort has been made here to represent to the house, and through it to the Canadian people-and efforts are now being made outside the house to repeat such representations-that the reason why this payment is being made is that the British defaulted under their agreement.
When the government was confronted during the course of the debate with the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 5, 1950, efforts were first made to convince the house that the statement so recorded in Hansard was incomplete, in that a period or comma had been left out. That effort having failed, an effort was then made to convince the house that the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce meant in fact nothing more than that the Canadian government accepted as the position of the British government the fact that it had fully discharged its obligation.
Of course the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 5, which I am glad to see the minister has said he wishes to alter in no way, and which he confirms, says no such thing. That statement goes far beyond the mere assertion that the Canadian government accept as the position of the British government that it has discharged

its obligation. That statement says clearly and simply that the Canadian government agreed that under all the circumstances the British government had discharged its obligation; and all the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture subsequently to show that the statement did not mean that have served merely further to confuse the issue but, more important, have served further to emphasize the difference between the statement of the Minister of Agriculture and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In the papers tabled tonight, however, we have the facts, which finally settle what the position is. Those papers clearly show that on May 30 the Canadian government officially agreed with the British government that all obligations under the "have regard to" clause might be considered to have been taken care of. That position was set forth by the British government at the meeting held in London in May, which was attended by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The papers tabled in the house tonight make it clear that the record of that meeting was embodied in a memorandum brought back by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That memorandum was presented to the cabinet. On May 30, the Minister of Trade and Commerce wired the British government to the effect that his colleagues agreed with the conclusions. There has not yet been time to obtain a full copy of these papers; but I have been able to look at them and to make extracts from them. I have taken down the actual words of the relevant parts of the papers.
The first paper is a message from the Minister of Trade and Commerce dated May 30, 1950, and reading in part as follows:
I have reported these discussions-
That is, the discussions recorded in the memorandum the minister had brought back.
I have reported these discussions to my colleagues-
This is a quotation from the message of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
-and wish to let you know that they are in accord with the conclusions recorded in paragraph 2 (a) (b) and (c) of the agreed record of the discussions.
Paragraph 2(a) and (b) refer to the discussions and embody conclusions reached in the discussions respecting the 1950-51 contract. They have no reference to any amount which might be owing under the four-year contract -no reference to that contract at all.
Paragraph 2(c) reads as follows-and these are the actual words of the memorandum brought back from the United Kingdom by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the
Canadian Wheat Board Act memorandum which records the conclusions of the meeting held there:
The United Kingdom government was anxious not to be represented as having given assurances regarding wheat purchases in 1950-51 in return for the waiver of a claim by Canada under the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom expected to make large purchases of wheat from Canada in any event. Nevertheless in the context of these discussions United Kingdom representatives felt that it would be reasonable that all obligations under the "have regard to" clause might be considered to have been taken care of. Mr. Howe said that this was a matter which could only be settled by the Canadian cabinet on his return.	.
It is in the light of that statement-paragraph 2(c) of the memorandum-that the United Kingdom felt it would be reasonable that all obligations under the "have regard to" clause might be considered to have been taken care of, that one should read the message from the Minister of Trade and Commerce sent to the United Kingdom following his discussion with his colleagues, in which he stated that he had reported these discussions to his colleagues and wished "to let you know that they"-his colleagues-"are in accord with the conclusions recorded in paragraphs 2(a) (b) and (c)". The papers show conclusively that the matter was discussed in cabinet here prior to May 30 and following the minister's return from London, and that in those discussions in cabinet, the Canadian government agreed that all the obligations under the "have regard to" clause should be considered as having been discharged.
In the light of that fact it is strange indeed that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should still persist in his efforts to represent that the British government has not discharged its obligation under the contract. It is stranger still that the Minister of Agriculture should persist in his efforts to represent that the government did not agree on May 30 last year that the British government had discharged its obligation under the contract.
After he had been confronted with the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce of June 5 and in a further effort to explain this statement-and the Minister of Agriculture must be presumed to have had knowledge of the message sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce-the Minister of Agriculture tried to tell this house that the message sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not mean that the Canadian government agreed with the United Kingdom government that the obligations had been discharged. We find this matter being discussed in this debate at page 1120 of Hansard of March 9, 1951, at which time the Minister of Agriculture was referring to

Canadian Wheat Board Act a statement by Mr. Gaitskell in the United Kingdom to the same effect, namely, that the British and Canadian governments had agreed that the obligations had been discharged. At that time the Minister of Agriculture said that Mr. Gaitskell had not said that at all and I go on to quote the minister's remarks from page 1120 of Hansard:
He simply said that a decision, was reached, and nothing more than that.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) then interjected:


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said today that he brought back a memorandum in May 1950 which related to this matter. Did the government approve of that memorandum?


Mr. Gardiner:: The government approved of just
exactly what I am saying and what I said last night. They approved of it unanimously. The memorandum did not say what my hon. friends are saying.
I pause here to observe that the memorandum did say exactly what we are saying: Mr. Coldwell: Did the memorandum consist of a minute of the meeting between the minister and the British government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but the minute did not say what my hon. friends are trying to read into it.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the government produce the
relevant part of the minute?


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. Howe:: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my hon. friend that it would be more manly to wait until the Minister of Agriculture is in his seat before the hon. member makes charges of that kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the Minister of Agriculture were in town and intending to come into the
Canadian Wheat Board Act house I should to glad to wait. While I know ministers sometimes have to go away on government business-I know there are unavoidable absences, yet on this occasion the minister is absent on his own business. My hon. friends opposite, the minister's colleagues, are calling "question, question". I rather think that if I and the rest of us were to discontinue taking part in the debate now the government would insist upon an immediate vote. I accept no responsibility for the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, who started this discussion and then left. If he were here I would be saying exactly the same things and asking the same questions as I am asking now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Asking them much more boldly in his absence though.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce really should not judge others by himself in this regard.
The Minister of Agriculture-


James Arthur Ross: He is out talking wheat in Saskatchewan. He should be here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Agriculture knew this debate was going to take place. The Minister of Agriculture did not ask the house to adjourn the debate while he went out to Saskatchewan to talk to the people of Saskatchewan about wheat. I suggest the Minister of Agriculture should be here listening-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think he would be worried: about what you say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and taking part in the debate. As was pointed out this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture and everyone in the House of Commons knows pretty well that an election is expected in Saskatchewan at any moment now. The only conclusion I can come to in my own mind:-and I will not put this in the form of a question; I will state it as a conclusion that I come to-is that the sum which is to be paid has a very close relation to the expectation of an election in Saskatchewan.
So we come back to the matter of expectations as the basis for payment. Expectations of what? Expectation of an election. Expectation is what the Prime Minister said we were basing the payment on. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was a very simple way to avoid having to pay anything. That was to do what we have suggested should be done every year since 1946, to provide the grain producers of western Canada with an alternative market, and allow them to market their produce through their own marketing

Canadian Wheat Board Act organization if they wish, instead of taking it from them compulsorily through the wheat board.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Why don't you talk about something you know something about?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of some of the remarks that were made this afternoon by members of the Liberal party I wish to re-emphasize, although it has been made quite clear already, that we in this party did criticize the wheat agreement at the time that it was first before the house. Reference has been made to the statements of the then leader of this party, Mr. John Bracken. Mr. Speaker, I do not often direct your attention to the fact that there are interruptions. I might point out that I do not mind dealing with interruptions or questions that are directed to me but I am unable to deal with conversations and side debates going on between members which are not directed to me in such a manner that I can actually understand what is being said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Louder and funnier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was referring to the statements of Mr. Bracken which can be found at page 4822 of Hansard for August 15, 1946, where he criticized the wheat agreement in these terms:
It is a bad agreement because it proposes to sell 160 million bushels of wheat to Britain, at 50 cents a bushel below the world price. It is either a gift or it is an improvident trade arrangement.
As a second reason he gave the following:
It is a bad bargain also because it will create friction between Britain and Canada.
These two criticisms of the wheat agreement made in 1946 by the then leader of this party have been proven true in every particular. Therefore we are entitled to ask, on what basis are you resting your appeal for $65 million? The government's present answer is: On expectations. What a basis! I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how do you value expectations? I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, how do you value expectations? It is perfectly obvious that the government values them according to whether or not there is to be an election.
I ask the Minister of Finance: What happens to the economy drive about which he has said so much, when payments are now to be based on expectations? The Minister of Finance will never be able to make the suggestion again that any increase in expenditure, or any failure to reduce expenditure, is the responsibility of the members of the opposition, when he is going to table estimates on Monday asking for the expenditure of $65 million on the basis of "expectations".

Why are the expectations of one group worth $65 million when there is an election anticipated out there, while the expectations of another group are apparently worth nothing? The apple producers for instance were certainly entitled to expect something in view of the disasters which they have suffered, first, the loss of their markets, second, the whittling away of the British preference, third, the inability of the British to spend dollars for apples, and then the disastrous winter of 1949-50 in British Columbia when orchards were wiped out as much as 100 per cent. Payments had been made to other areas which had experienced disasters not exactly the same but similar-Rimouski and Cabano for example, when they were devastated by fire. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that when the apple growers came down here to ask for assistance they were entitled to have expectations but apparently their expectations are worth nothing in the eyes of this government. The Prime Minister told us that in the house just the other day. He said they could be taken care of by the provincial government. Yet the payment of this money to the prairies is now being justified on the basis of expectations. I suggest that the remarks made by my leader this afternoon that the government must lay before the house some basis upon which we are asked to arrive at this payment, whether it be 50 cents, 25 cents, 12 cents, ten cents or be what it may, are most pertinent. Further, before we are asked to vote on any payment, the conflicting statements made in this house were to be reconciled. Mr. Speaker, do not let the Prime Minister try to tell us that those were merely statements of opinion having nothing to do with the conclusions in the cabinet. The Prime Minister must tell this house how it is that two ministers make completely conflicting statements as to the position of the British with respect to this contract, one saying that the payment under the contract is a result of the default of the British, the other saying that the British have paid in full. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister owes it to this house, and to the country, either to reconcile those statements or to take the other course which was suggested this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and that is not continue to keep in his cabinet two ministers who make such conflicting statements on matters of policy. He should adopt that course in this house before he asks us to vote on the $65 million to be contained in the supplementary estimates.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: I should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, in

connection with this amendment. I am going to read it first. It is:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion on the government's announced decision with respect to the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool, and on the government's mishandling of the sale of wheat and other grains covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The word "mishandling", Mr. Speaker, is the chief reason why I rise to say a few words this evening. I should first like to advise the previous speaker that all producer organizations in western Canada requested the present wheat board set-up for the marketing of our grain.
There have been a lot of words spoken and written about a so-called loss on the five-year pool and the four-year contract with Britain. These writers and orators close their mind to the past, forget world conditions and only quote the present swing of world inflation. Have we not memories or do we close our minds to the past in order to forget what happened in the open market? Britain, the largest buyer of our wheat, now buys in bulk. Are we in a position to sell her in small lots or are we to allow a combination of traders to get together to pool their purchases to make this bulk delivery? The producers can remember when the wheat board was thrown over in 1920 following world war I, and these few speculative traders had a chance to show their stuff. Wheat hit a high of $2.85 a bushel early in September, 1920, when the wheat began to pour on the market, and by December, 1923, it was carried to the low average of 93-J cents. We all know the picture of conditions that followed.
Compare that situation with what occurred during the five years after world war II. Stabilization was secured. Could this speculative market operate today? Following the outbreak of war, and before it ended, the wheat board had to carry as high as 600 million bushels. Could speculators operate when importing countries could only purchase by loans or gifts? The government had to make these loans and gifts. Under the board the price was stabilized, and for the first time in our history the farmer knew the minimum price when he seeded. Being a free man in a free democracy, he could manage his business with a degree of confidence.
Before the frost hit the wheat board was faced with a most difficult marketing problem. It would have had to find consumers for a 500 million bushel wheat crop. Those consumers would have to have sufficient dollars with which to buy the wheat, and be prepared to pay enough for it to justify the original $1.40 initial payment. The frost eased
Canadian Wheat Board Act that selling problem but handed the board a far more difficult one, that of finding buyers for over 100 million bushels of wheat good only for feeding to livestock. The same rains that produced the bumper wheat crop gave the west an abundance of pasture and feeds. That fact alone has made feed wheat of less value than would otherwise have been the case. In order to find any kind of market for it, it must be priced at a point where it can be utilized as stock feed. This, then, is a real distress crop; an embarrassment to the producers, the wheat board, and the economy of the country.
To take the position that the wheat board should have set an artificially high price for feed wheat to compensate farmers for the terrible loss they suffered from frost is utterly illogical. The wheat board has but one function, to market the farmers' grain for the best possible price and to return to the farmers the net proceeds of the crop. The wheat board exists because the farmers of the west have become convinced that over the long term it provides price stability unknown under the boom and bust futures market system. All the farmers of the west have ever wanted, and ever hoped to get, was a fair average price for their wheat, not $3 one year and 35 cents the next. Before the wheat board, wheat might have been priced at $1.50 before the farmer planted it; $1.75 in July before harvest, and $1 when they hauled their crop to the elevator. When the price was high they had nothing to sell. When they had wheat to sell the price was often ruinous.
If the farmers of the west can get the average of what our overseas customers are prepared to pay for our wheat, that is all most producers have ever wanted. They have only wanted a system without the wild speculative fluctuations that were part and parcel of the futures market system. If the wheat board is to be the target for unreasoned abuse every time an initial price is set, and every time any other problem of marketing arises, the days of the board are surely numbered. It cannot stand much more of the kind of friendship it has been getting this past year.
Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to put my finger on the crux of the whole system of marketing wheat in the world. I am taking in a lot of territory, but I believe I am going to give some information now that I have never heard in this house before. Regardless of what has been said by many of the grain trade representatives or any hon. member in this house, I contend that not one of them has mentioned the one thing which I consider has completely

Canadian Wheat Board Act changed the picture in so far as wheat marketing is concerned for all exporting countries in the world. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that was the closing of the Liverpool corn or grain exchange. I contend, sir, that there is no similar market in any country in the world today. The action of the British government in 1940 revolutionized the selling of wheat. In the face of that fact, I want to commend this government and the wheat board for their policy in disposing of our exportable wheat, which means so much to the grain producers and to the Canadian economy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, prior to the closing of the Liverpool grain exchange, when we looked at the marketing page of any newspaper in any country in the world to ascertain the price of wheat, what did we see? The first market that was mentioned in any column in any newspaper was Liverpool. What do we see today? We do not see Liverpool mentioned any longer. I contend that Chicago and Winnipeg have not taken the place of the Liverpool corn or grain exchange. These markets are in exporting countries and not in an importing country such as England is. Great Britain probably was, and is today, the greatest importer of wheat of any country in the world.


Major James William Coldwell: am not going to be very long tonight, Mr. Speaker, but this document for which we pressed, and about which a motion stands in my name on the order paper, has been placed before the house tonight. I believe it should be put on the record, and I propose to do that. First of all, I should like to take, as it were, a text. My text is the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on March 8 at page 1120 of Hansard, and quoted by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I do not propose to quote all that he quoted, although I intended to do so before he spoke. I wish to quote almost the concluding words of the statement made by the minister.
The fact is that the British government accepted the position that this government did not agree.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on Monday evening dealt with that very explicitly and stood by his statement of June 5 last year. The document, a oopy of which I hold in my hand, fully substantiates, first, that an agreement had been reached with respect to the "have regard to" clause by the cabinet after the minister's return from London; and, second1-and I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his place-that the Minister of Agriculture for two days last week misled this house in regard to that

matter-not only misled the house but, what is worse, misled the country. I think that a minister who misleads parliament and the country no longer can have the confidence of his fellow members of the cabinet, of the house or of the country; and I believe that in any other parliament under our constitutional system that situation would have been made clear before now.


Mr. Boucher:: The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) replied to that fully this afternoon.


Major James William Coldwell: The document I hold in my hand reads as follows:
United Kingdom-Canadian Wheat Talks May 1950
Agreed Record of a Meeting in the Foreign Secretary's Room in the House of Commons at 2.30 p.m. on Monday 22nd May 1950
Present:
United Kingdom: Chancellor of the Exchequer (in the Chair); Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations; Minister of State for Economic Affairs; Minister of Food; Sir Percivale Liesching; Sir Henry Wilson Smith; Sir Frank Lee; Mr. A. E. Feavearyear.
Canada: Mr. C. D. Howe; Mr. L. B. Pearson; Mr. L.	D. Wilgress; Mr. Norman A. Robertson; Mr. M.	W. Mackenzie; Mr. G. A. Mclvor.
Secretary: Mr. F. Hollins.
1.	The meeting considered the following three questions in the light of the discussions that had taken place since Friday, 19th May:
(a)	The quantity of wheat to be bought by the United Kingdom from Canada in the crop year 1950/51.
(b)	The proportion of the quantity at (a) which the United Kingdom would take in the form of flour.
(c)	The final settlement of any question still outstanding under clause 2 (b) (the "have regard to" clause) of the United Kingdom/Canada contract of 1946.
2.	The conclusions reached on these three subjects were as follows:
(a)	The United Kingdom and Canadian governments would both make agreed announcements on the results of the conversations in the terms of the statement at Annex A. The United Kingdom government would have no objection to Mr. Howe stating publicly on his return to Canada, if he considered it desirable, that he thought it reasonable to assume that in 1950/51 Canada would be able to sell to the United Kingdom at competitive international wheat agreement prices somewhere between 100-120 million bushels of wheat. This quantity would include the carry-over of 12-5 million bushels bought under the terms of the four-year contract. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would also be prepared to make a public statement to the effect that the United Kingdom government hoped that they would be able to meet their requirements for dollar wheat from their traditional market in Canada within the international wheat agreement, and that this would be possible provided that such wheat could be purchased on terms as to price, quality and position not less favourable than those obtained by any other buyer in the dollar market whether in the United States of America or in Canada.

(b)	As part of its purchases of Canadian wheat in the crop year 1950/51 the United Kingdom would agree to take 300,000 tons of flour, provided that it could be purchased on terms not less favourable as to price and quality than those obtained by any other buyer of flour in the dollar market, whether in the United States of America or Canada. The United Kingdom representatives made it clear that the purchase of 300,000 tons in 1950/51 would be without prejudice to a possible lower scale of purchase in 1951/52.
Now comes clause (c) to which I wish to direct particular attention'*.
(c)	The United Kingdom was anxious not to be represented as having given assurances regarding wheat purchases in 1950/51 in return for the waiver of a claim by Canada under the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom expected to make large purchases of wheat from Canada in any event. Nevertheless, in the context of these discussions, the United Kingdom representatives felt that it would be reasonable that all obligations under the "have regard to" clause might be considered to have been taken care of. Mr. Howe said that this was a matter which could only be settled by the Canadian cabinet on his return.
Instead of reading the next paragraph, I think perhaps I should read the message that was sent from Canada after the Canadian cabinet had considered this minute. The Minister of Agriculture told us that the action under the minute was taken unanimously. May I just point out that there had been a lapse of eight days from the time the conference was held in London until the message was sent to Britain on May 30. During those eight days there was no protest from the Canadian government with respect to the "have regard to" clause and no suggestion that further negotiations should be held to modify the conclusion that had been reached and which is to be found in this return. On May 30, 1950, this message was sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had better read the letter which accompanies it. It is as follows:
Ottawa, May 30, 1950
Dear Sir Alexander:
Regarding the recent wheat talks in London, I am sending you, herewith, a message for the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I would be grateful if this could be sent off to London at once.
Yours sincerely,
A. D. P. Heeney
Sir Alexander Clutterbuck,
High Commissioner for the United Kingdom, Earnscliffe,
Ottawa.
The message is as follows:
Ottawa, May 30, 1950
Following for the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, begins:
I have reported to my colleagues in the Cabinet on our recent wheat talks in London, and wish to let you know that they are in accord with the conclusions recorded in paragraph 2 (a), (b) and
Canadian Wheat Board Act (c) of the agreed record of the meeting which we held in the Foreign Secretary's room in the House of Commons on Monday, May 22nd.
In the circumstances, I should very much like to make public the agreed statement today, May 30th, if possible at 3.00 p.m. Ottawa time.
The agreed statement-and I do not think I need to put it on the record again-was annex A of this agreement. If we look at the statement that was agreed upon, identified as annex A, we find that after it was read to this house on May 30 last the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this question:
May I ask the minister if at this conference a basis of settlement under the "have regard to" clause was discussed?
He went on to speak of the losses he believed had been sustained; and the answer of the minister was:
I understand the wheat board act will be discussed later in the session, and I do not care to amplify this statement at the moment.
That was the very day the message was sent to Britain stating that the government of Canada was in accord with the view in clause (c) of paragraph 2 of this agreement. The matter was settled by that exchange. It was settled first of all tentatively, as it were, in London. It could not be settled definitely because the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had not the authority. But when they got back the cabinet agreed, and authorized the minister to so notify the chancellor of the exchequer. So there is no possibility whatever of saying anything other than that an agreement and settlement of this matter was made. The other evening someone saw fit to criticize me because I had not been in touch with the British government. Well, of course it is not my place or my prerogative to get in touch with the British government on a matter under negotiation between our two governments. On the other hand, how could any member of this house have got in touch with the British government when, that agreement having been made on May 30, the Minister of Trade and Commerce answered the hon. member for Souris as he did? In other words none of us knew that this matter had been settled. I say there has been a deplorable lack of frankness in this connection; and the later attempts to re-open discussions could not possibly have succeeded because of the firm agreement that had been made in the exchange of the minute and the message of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the chancellor on May 30, 1950.
I do not know what this reference is to a waiver, but evidently there was consider-
1308	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act able discussion about this "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government was anxious not to be represented as having given assurances regarding wheat purchases in 1950-51 in return for the waiver of a claim by Canada under the "have regard to" clause. Evidently there was a very thorough discussion. I do not know who suggested a waiver; whether the Canadian government representative said to the British government, "If you will buy a large quantity of wheat in 1950-51 the 'have regard to' clause will be waived completely". I do not know whether or not that was done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend think it was done? Does he think the British government would send out an agreed minute if they did not wish to be represented as accepting a waiver? Does he think they really did accept a waiver and then did not want to be represented as having done so?


Major James William Coldwell: No. What I was just going to say was: or on the other hand, did the British government make the suggestion of a waiver? Somebody did. That is the point I am making.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nobody did.


Major James William Coldwell: The British government then obviously wanted to make clear in this that a waiver formed no part of the understanding. They went on to say that the United Kingdom expected to make large purchases of wheat from Canada in any event, whether or not the "have regard to" clause was settled. Now we have this document in the whole. We also have some members of the government in the hole, because there is no question but that anyone who reads the exchanges of last week will now realize how far from the true facts were some of the statements that were placed upon the records of this house, principally by the Minister of Agriculture. That is so even in regard to Mr. Strachey's statement at Winnipeg. What did he say at the end of his speech there? This is what the press carried, and I presume that it was in his prepared script:
I repeat that the essence of the agreement is that in return for selling wheat at $1.55 during the first two years of the agreement, Canadian farmers get the protection of minimum floor prices of $1.25 and $1 in the third and fourth years. And I reiterate that it is an inescapable obligation of the British government to pay at least these prices however low the world price of wheat may go.
In other words if there was a difference of opinion regarding this "have regard to" clause as between the Canadian and British governments, apparently the understanding of Mr. Strachey at that time was something which incidentally I did not understand at the time-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What is the date of that?


Major James William Coldwell: I want to finish what I am
saying. Mr. Strachey's idea of this agreement, to some extent, was a sort of insurance policy that he was offering. I did not agree with that point of view, and it is not precisely what we have believed of it. But to return to this document, there is no question but that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleague brought back a minute which in effect was a proposal for the settlement of the whole matter, and the "have regard to" clause was discussed and the conclusion recorded in this minute. When they arrived back they placed that minute containing the settlement proposed by the British government before the cabinet, and we are told that the cabinet unanimously gave the Minister of Trade and Commerce the right to send a message saying:
I have reported to my colleagues in the cabinet on our recent wheat talks in London, and wish to let you know that they are in accord with the conclusions recorded in paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (c) of the agreed record of the meeting which we held in the foreign secretary's room in the House of Commons on Monday, May 22nd.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I rise on a point of privilege. I have as much right in this house as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) or anybody else, and I would like to know the date of the document he is reading from.


Major James William Coldwell: I have given it. This is an agreed minute tabled by the Prime Minister tonight, the minute of the meeting held in London on May 22, 1950; and the message I have just read was sent by the secretary of the Privy Council of Canada, Mr. A. D. P. Heeney, after the cabinet meeting. It is dated May 30, 1950, in other words months before the "have regard to" clause was raised again in any way, either by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). During that week-during the week between the London meeting and the Ottawa meeting-there was no attempt on the part of the cabinet or, so far as we know, any member of the cabinet, to say to the government of Great Britain, "We are not satisfied with this deal; we would like to negotiate further."
On the contrary, they said, "We accept this agreement and we authorize the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to send a message" in the words I have just read. During that week there was no attempt to reopen the matter for Canadian farmers. No



IS, 1951

[Stage Direction]
attempt was made to call in representatives of the producers of this country, no attempt to call in the advisory committee of the wheat board-nothing of that kind. The matter was firmly and finally signed, sealed and delivered.
An hon. Member:: A sell-out.


Major James William Coldwell: Anyone who goes across
this country today and says that after this there was either a legal or moral obligation left over is wilfully and deliberately deceiving the people of Canada-and no peradven-ture about it. It is clear as crystal.


An hon. Member:: Making a lot of noise.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member says I am making a lot of noise tonight.


An hon. Member:: Not you, the crew behind you.


Major James William Coldwell: What I am saying, even if I did say it in a loud voice, is that there is no misunderstanding as to what this document means. And I say to hon. members on all sides of the house that they should cease- cease-misrepresenting this matter, anywhere.
The British government under this agreement says, "We are going to take large quantities of wheat from Canada"-100 million to 120 million bushels. Well, before the war, you know, the very best we could do in our sales of wheat to Britain was an average of about, I think, 90 million bushels a year. We have a market now in the United Kingdom for more.
Do you think that any people or any government will receive kindly some of the unjustifiable and unjustified criticism that has been thrown across the floor of this house during the last week or so? I say this trade is vital-and I do not care what government is in power in Great Britain, or what its political complexion may be, that government will fulfil an agreement which has been entered into.
Apparently the Canadian government agreed, in the message which was sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to London on May 30-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: May I ask a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment; I will let you in a moment-on May 30, that the agreement had been fulfilled. I will take the hon. member's question now.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Why is the waiver sentence in there? Why did they want the waiver in it?


Major James William Coldwell: They did not. There is no suggestion of that-in fact, quite the con-B0709-84
Canadian Wheat Board Act trary. It is quite the contrary. What did they say regarding waiver? They say:
The United Kingdom government was anxious not to be represented as having given assurances regarding wheat purchases in 1950-51 in return for the waiver of a claim by Canada under the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom expected to make large purchases of wheat from Canada in any event.
What they said was:	We do not care
whether you hold us to something that you think you can read into the wheat agreement, or not. We are not going to do other than purchase a large quantity of wheat from Canada in 1950-51. That is what it means and what it says.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: That is reading it wrong.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment; I am reading every word as written here. I am reading it correctly. I am not following the example of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) last week who tried to read something that was not there at all, and got it into the record as though it was read from some document. I am not doing that. I am reading a document-in fact, a document the Prime Minister tabled in the house tonight. And I say that if I were reading it wrong the Prime Minister would rise in his place and correct me. I am reading it correctly.
That is all I have to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: Is not the Prime Minister going to deal with the disclosures in the communications?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister has dealt with everything that is in these communications, today, and has stated the substance of them very fully, up to such time as he had the permission of the government of the United Kingdom to place the text on the table of the house.
Now, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has rightly said that, if he had not been reading what he was reading correctly, I would have risen to my feet to interrupt him. But I did1 not choose to rise to my feet to contradict the interpretation he was putting upon the document he was reading. He was required to read the document as it was, and he did that. But I am not required to share his interpretation of what he was reading, or his paraphrasing of what he was reading.
The hon. member correctly read paragraph (c) and he interpreted it as meaning that the United Kingdom repulsed, pushed aside, some suggestion that was being made that there was being a waiver given to them for their

Canadian Wheat Board Act undertaking to purchase wheat. They wanted it quite clear that their purchase of wheat in 1950-51 was something separate and independent, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said in his speech, from any discussion of the "have regard to" clause in the other agreement. And the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated in the house that the matter of the purchase of wheat had been arranged and completed before the other point was raised.. That is his report that was made to us at the time, and it is a report that is confirmed by this document which I tabled today.
The document addis that there was also discussed, after the matter of the purchase of wheat for the crop year 1950-51, the settlement of the agreement which had existed for the purchase of the four previous crops, and that on that no settlement was reached, but the minister said that he would have to report on this matter to his colleagues in Ottawa. And there was an agreed statement to be made public, which was not to be made public until after he had reported to his colleagues in Canada, and had communicated an answer to them.
The answer that was communicated to them was that the conclusions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) were agreed to. There is in my way of reading this no agreement about the statement that the "have regard to" clause might be considered to have been taken care of. The conclusion of paragraph (c) is that this could only be settled by the Canadian cabinet, upon his return. And we regarded that as something that could not be settled in any other way than the manner in which the United Kingdom wanted it settled-that is, that they were not going to make further payment.


Major James William Coldwell: But they did not say that definitely. They say that "It would be reasonable that all obligations under the 'have regard to' clause"-and so on. Do they not leave the way open for further negotiations, if the government thought of applying for further negotiations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government thought
at that time that the only binding obligations in that contract were those that the hon. member has referred to in the concluding words that Mr. Strachey used in the Winnipeg meeting, that it was a guarantee that they would take a stated quantity at a price not below the floor price that was indicated in


the agreement. We accepted that as something about which nothing further could be done. Nothing further would have been done had my colleagues and I not realized that there was grievous disappointment in the expectations that had been created by the statements made in 1946 by the Minister of Agriculture, by the then minister of trade and commerce and by the Right Hon. Mr. Strachey after listening to the debate in this house. We found! that to be a serious situation which existed throughout those provinces.
I felt, rightly or wrongly-I make mistakes like everybody else; I am not always willing to recognize that the thing I have done is a mistake, but I never feel at all hurt when others suggest that it was a mistake and discuss the propriety or otherwise of what I have done on its merits-and I would not have raised the question with Mr. Attlee if I had not felt it was my duty to the prime minister of another country of the commonwealth to apprize him of the state of opinion in that regard here in Canada. I admitted to him that perhaps he might say to me that I had no right to talk about the "have regard to" clause at that time in view of the minute of May and the answer that had been made. But I said I was telling him what the situation was and how it had come about and I asked him, as I have said on two occasions already in the house, if under these circumstances he did not think it would be proper for me to raise the question with the chancellor of the exchequer. He agreed that it would be proper for me to do so, and I did so.
I canmot agree in any sense with the opinion expressed by the hon. member that there has been misrepresentation. The facts have been stated in the order in which they occurred. The opinion that there was something more that had to be done by somebody because of expectations that had been raised by declarations and the interpretations put upon this contract in 1946, and maintained periodically during the whole life of the contract, was something that was a fact; and whatever the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) may feel about it, whatever he may have said about it, is not going to change the opinion about that fact of those who are affected.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the record which has now been placed before us of the minutes of the meeting in London on May 22 last gives this whole discussion an entirely new

turn. There is one point that has been raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) which seems to me to be of considerable importance in its effect on the way that we ex-amine the measure of frankness or lack of frankness there has been in the whole of these proceedings.
This was not some casual meeting. This was a meeting of the utmost importance not only to the government of Canada and the wheat growers of western Canada but to all Canadians. Obviously the meeting was regarded as being of sufficient importance to call for the attendance in London of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Canadian High Commissioner in London, the secretary of the cabinet council and two other senior officials.
In addition it called to the meeting Sir Stafford 'Cripps, Lord Addison, the Right Hon. Mr. Gaitskell, the Right Hon. Mr. Strachey and) men of the standing of Sir Percivale Liesching.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I object to a misrepresentation being made by the leader of the opposition as to who attended that meeting.


George Alexander Drew: In what way? Who did not attend the meeting that I have mentioned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Lord Addison did not attend it and certainly Mr. Strachey did not attend it.


George Alexander Drew: Was he not minister of food at that time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir. If my hon. friend will read the text instead of trying to give his own interpretation of it he would not fall into that pit.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of the conduct of this minister who will tell the house nothing that he can avoid, this man who holds the house in complete and utter contempt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Holds the hon. member in
complete and utter contempt.


George Alexander Drew: This minister who never informs the house probably has not been bothered to notice that the names of these ministers are not there, and that I was assuming that Mr. Strachey, whose name has been mentioned, was minister of food at that time. If he was not, then let the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us who were there. Give us the names so that we will know. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was Sir Stafford Cripps; was he not there?
80709-84J
Canadian Wheat Board Act Mr. Howe: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: The secretary of state for
commonwealth relations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Gordon-Walker.


George Alexander Drew: Who was minister of state for economic affairs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon. friend not read the papers lately?


George Alexander Drew: That is one of these usual smart aleck remarks.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is not so smart this evening.


George Alexander Drew: I have read the papers recently..


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there should be questions back and forth between ministers and hon. members when the Speaker is in the chair.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce in his interjection suggested that I had not been reading the papers recently. I am referring to a meeting which took place-on May 22, 1950, and I am pointing out that: that was a meeting attended by men of the highest importance in the cabinet. I have not been given a list of the names. The statement was placed in our hands only in the last few minutes. Then with the usual contempt for the house that this minister displays he tries to convey the impression that the names are there. They are not, except when it comes to the officials.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I accept your apology.


George Alexander Drew: I am not apologizing to the
minister, but I would hope that we still might see some recognition of parliamentary responsibility which would carry this minister to the point of apologizing to this house for the way he has misrepresented matters to this house. I will give the names that are at the top of the paper. They are:
Chancellor of the exchequer In the chair
Secretary of state for commonwealth relations
Minister of state for economic affairs
Minister of food
Sir Percivale Liesching
Sir Henry Wilson Smith
Sir Frank Lee
Mr. A. E. Feavearyear.
Those were the men who were regarded as being the most appropriate to attend a meeting of this importance. It was no casual meeting, it was a meeting of the utmost importance. The result of that meeting is set out in these minutes. These minutes which have been placed on the record were dealing
1312	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act with subjects which were then of very much concern to the people of this country. It states that the subjects considered were:-
(a)	The quantity of wheat to be bought by the United Kingdom from Canada in the crop year 1950-51.
(b)	The proportion of the quantity at (a) which the United Kingdom would take in the form of flour.
(c)	The final settlement of any questions still outstanding under clause 2(b) (the "have regard to" clause) of the United Kingdom-Canada contract of 1946.
These were the three subjects that this meeting, with those very important representatives of both governments in attendance, was called to discuss. The minutes which were agreed upon by those attending as correctly representing what had taken place there referred to the final settlement of any questions regarding the "have regard" clause under paragraph (c) of these settled minutes. I do not see how any hon. member of the house can possibly be in any doubt as to what the combined result of that record, with the subsequent message of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), amounted to. As to (c) the conclusion reached was as follows:
The United Kingdom government was anxious not to be represented as having given assurances regarding wheat purchases in 1950-51 in return for the waiver of a claim by Canada under the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom expected to make large purchases of wheat from Canada in any event. Nevertheless, in the context of these discussions, the United Kingdom representatives felt that it would be reasonable that all obligations under the "have regard to" clause might be considered to have been taken care of.
They were asking that this be a definite understanding, and it was in relation to the definite understanding sought by the government of the United Kingdom that the obligations under the "have regard to" clause would be considered to have been fully taken care of, that Mr. Howe-and I am using the name because it appears in the minutes- was recorded as having said that this was a matter which could only be settled by the Canadian cabinet on his return. It was with reference to that specific subject and that specific consideration that the message was sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce through the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom in Ottawa, Sir Alexander Clutter-buck, on May 30, 1950. That message seems to be open to no misinterpretation. It is as follows:
I have reported to my colleagues in the cabinet on our recent wheat talks in London, and wish to let you know that they are in accord with the conclusions recorded in paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c)


of the agreed record of the meeting which we held in the foreign secretary's room in the House of Commons on Monday, May 22.
That does not mean that the Canadian government declared that this was a correct record. Those who were there were able to declare it was a correct record and did so. What is declared is that the Canadian government was in agreement with the conclusions, and one of the conclusions put forward by the government of the United Kingdom for consideration was that the obligations under the "have regard to" clause should be declared to have been taken care of.
Certainly that was a definite finding. It was a definite finding communicated to the British government. It is in the light of that decision that we must examine the effect of the question and answer which have already been referred to because the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in accordance with that message, at the opening of the house at three o'clock read into the record, and it now appears in Hansard, the statement which had been agreed upon in London on May 22. It was after that that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the "have regard to" clause had been discussed in London, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, knowing perfectly well that a message had just been sent to the British government, a message which he obviously had in mind when he spoke on June 5, said that he understood the wheat board act would be discussed later in the session, and he did not care to amplify this statement at the moment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that it was because of the fact that the government learned later of the dissatisfaction that existed amongst the farmers of western Canada that this subject was taken up again at the time that the prime minister of Great Britain visited Ottawa. He said that nothing further would have been done if the government had not become aware of this discontent.


William Earl Rowe: Expectations.


George Alexander Drew: There would not have been any reason for this discontent if the government at the very time that this statement had been made had informed the house, the people of Canada and particularly the western farmers, as they should have been informed, that on May 22 the British government had put forward what was to be regarded as a final settlement, that this had been considered by the government of Canada, and that the

government of Canada had approved of their declaration that there was a final settlement under the "have regard to" clause.
If there was any misunderstanding, if there was any discontent, it was because of the improper withholding of information which should have been placed before all the people of Canada on May 30 last year. The information now before this house not only makes it clear that every statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was in clear defiance of the facts, and with knowledge that what he was saying was wrong, but also that the government has permitted the Minister of Agriculture to create a most unfair impression throughout this country in spite of their own declared approval of the position
Canadian Wheat Board Act put forward by the government of the United Kingdom on May 22 last year.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will give priority to wheat. The second item will be Bill No. 79, an act respecting Indians, and then Bill No. 130 an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. If we have time we will then take up a small bill or resolution.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 16, 1951